Fundamentalist Baptists crossing the Line?

[Salty]

About the word "cult"

One key word is "extremist"

I was a member of one IFB church where the constitiution said that ushers had to wear coat and ties.
Would that be extremist?

 

[shinninglight]

Saltcity states, " I was a member of one IFB church where the constitiution said that ushers had to wear coat and ties.
Would that be extremist?"

Let me thro this one at you. What if all the women at an IFB church all wear long dresses to their ankles but now one lady decides to wear a dress just below the knees. She is now shunned for doing so. Is that extremist? In my books it is. Is it cultic? Its the start to being so.

 

[DHK]

Saltcity states, " I was a member of one IFB church where the constitiution said that ushers had to wear coat and ties.
Would that be extremist?"

Let me thro this one at you. What if all the women at an IFB church all wear long dresses to their ankles but now one lady decides to wear a dress just below the knees. She is now shunned for doing so. Is that extremist? In my books it is. Is it cultic? Its the start to being so.

The nature of an IFB church is in the I, not just the F. That is it is independent. You can't lump them all together. I know of one church that didn't allow a person to preach if they had wire-rimmed glasses. Does that make them a cult? No, it is a standard that they held to because of a conviction that the pastor held, that he believe was based on the Bible. We believe in soul liberty here. We don't mindlessly follow a denomination.

If an IFB church sets as their standard ankle length dresses (as they did in the Victorian age), who are you to say it is wrong? Can you prove from the Bible it is wrong? As long as it is not a requirement for salvation it is not a cult. If they believe it is a step to holiness they have every right to have that standard no matter what your opinion is.
Every church is different, and all of them have different standards. You have no business sticking your nose in them and telling them if they are right or wrong. If you don't like then go somewhere else.

 

[DHK]

Shininglight your profile says Pentecostal.
The media labels Toronto's vineyard as Fundamental.
They label "The Toronto Blessing" as a fundamental movement. It wasn't.
They label "The Third Wave" as an extreme fundamentalist sect. It isn't.
They mis-use the name fundamentalist.
The above movements and organizations are in gross Biblical error. Many of them base their salvation on their experience and not the Word of God. They are very confused.

 

[shinninglight]

DHK states, " Every church is different, and all of them have different standards. You have no business sticking your nose in them and telling them if they are right or wrong. If you don't like then go somewhere else."


Sorry for hitting a nerve. "I'm not sticking my nose in them" and "I'm not telling them". I don't have to go somewhere as I already am. I just don't believe that shunning(which is prevalent) in Independent fundamentalist Baptist churches is christianlike. Our lord was an all inclusive lord to the those who thirsted for the word of God. I don't think it really mattered to him how people dressed as long as they wern't dressed covered in idols.

 

[DHK]

DHK states, " Every church is different, and all of them have different standards. You have no business sticking your nose in them and telling them if they are right or wrong. If you don't like then go somewhere else."


Sorry for hitting a nerve. "I'm not sticking my nose in them" and "I'm not telling them". I don't have to go somewhere as I already am. I just don't believe that shunning(which is prevalent) in Independent fundamentalist Baptist churches is christianlike. Our lord was an all inclusive lord to the those who thirsted for the word of God. I don't think it really mattered to him how people dressed as long as they wern't dressed covered in idols.

In Christ's day men wore togas and women wore stolas.
Christ didn't have the problem with modesty that we in our society have today. Otherwise, yes he did care. Paul writes much about modesty in the NT epistles.

We all accept sinners just as they are. But when a person gets saved the Holy Spirit begins a change in them. That change often means a change in appearance. And yes God does care.

But show up in church in a toga. See what people say

 

[DHK]

I just don't believe that shunning(which is prevalent) in Independent fundamentalist Baptist churches is christianlike. Our lord was an all inclusive lord to the those who thirsted for the word of God. I don't think it really mattered to him how people dressed as long as they wern't dressed covered in idols.

Having standards is not shunning. I have been in more IFB churches than you have (because of the nature of my work), and I don't see any shunning going around. I fail to see what you are speaking of.
When a person wants to lead, teach, or serve in any official capacity, they probably will be told that they will have to adhere to the standards of the church, which is only reasonable.
If you think about it, any secular business does the same thing. If you work for IBM you can't just wear any thing you want. The business makes you tow the line. Is not a soldier in the Lord's army any more disciplined than those in the secular world?

 

[shinninglight]

DHK says...."and I don't see any shunning going around. I fail to see what you are speaking of."

You know exactly what I am speaking of.

 

[Darron Steele]

The question I asked was a general question, nothing specific. Some pentecostal churches have also crossed the line. I just get the impression that this is a greater problem in the independent baptist churches. Am I right or wrong on this?

In my experience, you are wrong.

I have seen inordinate claims to authority greater and more in Pentecostal congregations than in Baptist congregations.

...And I don't despise baptists as some of my best friends are baptist. I just think there is a real problem in fundamental churches as well as Pentecostal. I focused on fundamental Baptist churches but the issue can apply to any church.

If the problem is significant in Pentecostal congregations, why not be a `good guest' and focus on this particular problem in your own denomination/s?

I am not Baptist, but you will see about as much or more criticism of my own church group than of Baptists. This is an Internet board for Baptists. Outside Christians are welcome here, but this board is not for us. I stay mindful of that, and try to act accordingly.

I mean, if you admit it is a significant problem in your own church group/s as well as among "fundamental Baptist" congregations, it seems like you ought to be concerned about `cleaning your own house' as opposed to `going to the neighbors to throw some stones.' I cannot blame Baptist posters for thinking that you have some sort of `axe to grind' against the Baptists, because you yourself have admitted it is a problem in your church group/s as among Baptists.

It looks like you want to focus on others' problems and avoid discussion of your own groups' very similar problems. I do not think that is fair.

 

[Darron Steele]

DHK says...."and I don't see any shunning going around. I fail to see what you are speaking of."

You know exactly what I am speaking of.

Are you sure?

In my experience, church groups that do not fully accept all Christians are generally unaware of it. Adherents often do not fully recognize the effects of practices or policies that exclude Christians.

I bet he has not a clue what you are talking about. I am not sure myself.

 

[BobRyan]

That is certainly not a new problem and certainly not limited to Fundamental Baptists. It has to do with the attitude and spirit of the pastor and the people. It has nothing to do with being fundamental in doctrine and practice.

I agree. The sinful tendancy - the human desire to institue a spirit of popery for the clergy - is not specific to Fundamental Baptist as a denomination. It is the human condition.

It would be like arguing that if you find several FB members in a certain immoral sin -- that this is a sign that the FB denomination is cultically linked to immorality.

It simply does not hold up.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

The nature of an IFB church is in the I, not just the F. That is it is independent. You can't lump them all together. I know of one church that didn't allow a person to preach if they had wire-rimmed glasses. Does that make them a cult? No, it is a standard that they held to because of a conviction that the pastor held, that he believe was based on the Bible. We believe in soul liberty here. We don't mindlessly follow a denomination.

If an IFB church sets as their standard ankle length dresses (as they did in the Victorian age), who are you to say it is wrong? Can you prove from the Bible it is wrong? As long as it is not a requirement for salvation it is not a cult. If they believe it is a step to holiness they have every right to have that standard no matter what your opinion is.
Every church is different, and all of them have different standards. You have no business sticking your nose in them and telling them if they are right or wrong. If you don't like then go somewhere else.

The utter irony is that you're relativizing things for them. "it's OK if it's their conviction". But the problem is, churches like that don't return the grace. They usually claim that IS the Biblical standard, and that they are not just to maintain biblical standards, but to actively oppose any lower standards. So they put a tight yoke on their followers and then spend all their time sticking their nose into everyone else's business (even if indirectly). If others appeal to conviction, even by the spirit, they trample it into the ground, claiming only the written Word is the standard. Yet, they can make up any rule they can think of, and tie it to a verse or whatever by the flimsiest thread of reasoning and then justify it as "conviction" when the "scriptural teaching -- er, principle" argument runs out.

The hook is that they don't usually stake salvation on some of those rules. Still, they make it a matter of "obedience", and claim everyone else is disobedient. They will point out that some of these "willfully disobedient" are 'probably' not saved, and that they all therefore need to "check themselves". That to me is a sneaky way of denying everyone else's standing in the Lord without actually "crossing the line" into works salvation (and they'll also be the ones criticizing others for "trying to come as close to 'the line' as possible instead of really doing what God says".)
Example is the school with the interracial dating rule that was grudgingly removed two elections ago. They had a history of condeming everyone else as "opposing God" (on this, and other related issues such as music), yet they and their defenders claimed "liberty"; which they pointedly denied everyone else.
Either it's Biblical or it is not. That's the standard they used on everyone else. Either 2 Cor. 6:4 includes the parameters they were using, or it does not. No relativism. No one can make anything biblical!
And then, what about the testimony it gives, and whether it is really "expedient" to the work of God (1Cor 10:23). Not even given a thought, though this again is preached at others, (including students regarding how they use their time).
Yet we see in practice in these cases it is the preacher/teacher is the one who determines what is right or wrong, and who gets liberty. That is too much power people try to appropriate. Hence, cultlike, whether they deny people's salvation or not. (Many cults don't).

A lot of this stuff is all self-aggrandizement anyway. Everyone wants to be God's spokesman to preach everyone else into line. What people preach always manages to make themselves look good and put a burden on others! It seems correcting others is what the faith is all about to many; and hence why so much dissension.

 

[DHK]

The utter irony is that you're relativizing things for them. "it's OK if it's their conviction". But the problem is, churches like that don't return the grace. They usually claim that IS the Biblical standard, and that they are not just to maintain biblical standards, but to actively oppose any lower standards. So they put a tight yoke on their followers and then spend all their time sticking their nose into everyone else's business (even if indirectly). If others appeal to conviction, even by the spirit, they trample it into the ground, claiming only the written Word is the standard. Yet, they can make up any rule they can think of, and tie it to a verse or whatever by the flimsiest thread of reasoning and then justify it as "conviction" when the "scriptural teaching -- er, principle" argument runs out.

Before a person joins a church they agree to the constitution and statement of faith. Most, of course, will always agree to the statement of faith. But if you don't want to agree to the constitution, where these things have been agreed upon by the pastor and the church, then go and find a church where you will be comfortable. It is as easy as that. A previous church that I was at had dress length written right into the constitution. You can't argue with it. One must agree to the constitution before becoming a member. There is no appeal. The choice is yours before you become a member!

The hook is that they don't usually stake salvation on some of those rules.

A ridiculous statement to make. Of course they don't, and never have.

Still, they make it a matter of "obedience", and claim everyone else is disobedient. They will point out that some of these "willfully disobedient" are 'probably' not saved, and that they all therefore need to "check themselves".

A person, for example, in direct disobedience to the Word of God, (according to the constitution which the agreed to; according to the definition of modesty which they agreed to) is in rebellion. Their heart attitude is one of rebellion. When one continues to live in rebellion what conclusion would you draw no matter what "rules" are being flaunted? As a parent if you set standards for your child. If your child continues to disobey you day after day, is that child right with God or not? It doesn't matter what the standard is. It matters what the heart attitude is to what the person agreed to in the first place.

That to me is a sneaky way of denying everyone else's standing in the Lord without actually "crossing the line" into works salvation (and they'll also be the ones criticizing others for "trying to come as close to 'the line' as possible instead of really doing what God says".)

You seem to know nothing of living a holy life and everything about enjoying a worldly life which the Bible condemns.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
--That "line" that you are talking about? It is what the Bible defines as the world, isn't it?

Example is the school with the interracial dating rule that was grudgingly removed two elections ago. They had a history of condeming everyone else as "opposing God" (on this, and other related issues such as music), yet they and their defenders claimed "liberty"; which they pointedly denied everyone else.
Either it's Biblical or it is not. That's the standard they used on everyone else. Either 2 Cor. 6:4 includes the parameters they were using, or it does not. No relativism. No one can make anything biblical!

I still do not agree with inter-racial dating to this day. But it is not on Biblical grounds. It is for social reason; cultural reasons.

1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

And then, what about the testimony it gives, and whether it is really "expedient" to the work of God (1Cor 10:23). Not even given a thought, though this again is preached at others, (including students regarding how they use their time).
Yet we see in practice in these cases it is the preacher/teacher is the one who determines what is right or wrong, and who gets liberty. That is too much power people try to appropriate. Hence, cultlike, whether they deny people's salvation or not. (Many cults don't).

Is it cult-like to live a holy life?
Is it cult-like to live separate from the world?

A lot of this stuff is all self-aggrandizement anyway. Everyone wants to be God's spokesman to preach everyone else into line. What people preach always manages to make themselves look good and put a burden on others! It seems correcting others is what the faith is all about to many; and hence why so much dissension.

Is it prideful or self-aggrandizing to live humbly before the Lord thy God and walk as close to him as possible in as holy a manner as possible, being as separate from the world as possible.

I think you better take a better look at the issues before judging others.

 

[shinninglight]

" One must agree to the constitution before becoming a member"

Most IFB churches don't even follow their constitutions and when they do its usually for the pastors purpose-usually an internal political battle or to make a new constitutional change. The constitution means nothing to IFB's.

 

[rbell]

" One must agree to the constitution before becoming a member"

Most IFB churches don't even follow their constitutions and when they do its usually for the pastors purpose-usually an internal political battle or to make a new constitutional change. The constitution means nothing to IFB's.

Aren't we just a weeeee bit overgeneralizing here?

 

[Salty]

" One must agree to the constitution before becoming a member"

Most IFB churches don't even follow their constitutions and when they do its usually for the pastors purpose-usually an internal political battle or to make a new constitutional change. The constitution means nothing to IFB's.

So should Baptists start writing in a Sgt-@-Arms and Paraliamentian (sp) into their constitutions?

 

[shinninglight]

Rbell, your right. I apologize. I ment some IFB's, not all.

 

[DHK]

" One must agree to the constitution before becoming a member"

Most IFB churches don't even follow their constitutions and when they do its usually for the pastors purpose-usually an internal political battle or to make a new constitutional change. The constitution means nothing to IFB's.

Your profile states that you are Pentecostal. From whence comes all this authoritative knowledge about IFB churches, or is it all hearsay and gossip?

 

[shinninglight]

Its not hearsay, thats for sure. I have experienced it in the Pentecostal church, not our own, but another and it divided a church. We also know of one example at a IFB in Canada from what our friends who told us happened at their church.

 

[Johnv]

Are some Fundamentalist Baptist churches crossing the line to the point where some may be classified cultic or semi-cultic because the focus is on a pastor-who is not be questioned?

If the pastor has sole authority to dictate church doctrine, that would be considered at least semi-occultic. There are many other things that one might consider semi-occultic, but is usually a case of legalism. Examples might be single-translation-onlyism, forbidding women to wear pants, not recognizing alien baptism, taking the tradition of immersion to an extreme, etc.