IFB Cultic Element

[thjplgvp]

Thjplgvp, I think you have misunderstood me. I am not saying there are cults within the IFB movement, but cult-like elements. Many cults grew out of orthodox congregations, perhaps if those individuals or groups concerned had been tackled early on when they were but a "cultic element" then they would never have become "cults".

As to the affusion/immersion thing - I think we best reserve that for another thread.

Ulsterman,

That is exactly my point "they grew out of" or they were led astray, but the process for the church to handle it and get it back on track is found in scripture because the authority that is required comes from within church polity. I don't deny there are leaders smilewinkgrin: ) who not only lead astray but oppose themselves in so doing but it is still the churches responsibility to govern themselves or separate, come out from among them. Early in my ministry I had to make a decision to leave a church where I was the youth director and administrator of the Christian School. My wife and I had formed some great friendships that are still intact after 23 years. But the pastor, on a church vote to remove some walls and add some others so manipulated the wording of the vote that if one voted yes they were voting no and if they voted no they were voting yes. That single illustration drove home some warnings that I could not lay aside not matter how much my wife and I wanted to stay and be included in the future of that congregation.

My choice was to resign and leave rather than make an issue of semantics. I saw the church I was saved and nurtured in make a similar decision with First Baptist of Hammond where my pastor was bestowed with an honorary doctorate. He broke off fellowship, he did not make a big to-do, he never mentioned it in services, we just never had that pastor back with us.

As long as IFB people refuse to study scripture for themselves wolves will continue to scatter flocks and impose their will within the local bodies. There is nothing that you and I can do apart from prayer and offer spiritual advice when asked.

The church where I am now a member is a strong IFB church, I am not on staff, but I teach a great deal in our adult education. I constantly admonish my students not to be uneducated ignorant Baptist's. I have taught Sunday School classes on how to use Strong’s, parallel bibles, word studies, historical research etc. My pastor attends my SS class and he has heard me challenge the students not to accept at face value any thing said from the pulpit that does not ring clearly with truth. In another word don't be afraid to study and ask questions.

He has never challenged me on this but when I am teaching a topic that may have some reverberations I give him the heads up in advance. Recently I gave some differences between KJVO and KJVP (we are a strong KJVP congregation) just in case we had some KJVO folk in our membership I wanted to warn him. His response was "teach the truth we will deal with it, they are joining us we are not joining them".

In conclusion yes I do see some men who would lead their congregations to hold themselves aloft as (infallible) but they are rarely successful in their endeavor. The danger comes when other pastors and colleges begin to inflate their ego's by proclaiming their supposed greatness.

A great book I finished reading about 2 months ago is "the subtle power of spiritual abuse" David Johnson. I thought there were a couple of areas he was stretching his point, but overall I was glad I had read it and will probably read it again in a few months just to remind me to be very careful how I portray myself and my views.

I have enjoyed the spirit of this thread. Considering the topic it has gone well.

Thjplgvp

 

[tinytim]

Most IFBs that I know will seperate from Ruckman. And they do read and study their Bible...

I may not agree with them on some issues, but I could not call them a cult.

 

[MatthewDiscipleOfGod]

I belong to an IFB church and my brother in law is a pastor at an IFB church. To call IFB churches cults is very insulting and certainly not accurate. Are there some that could be classified as cults? Sure, I'm sure there are. I would say a majority are not even close to being cults. We just hold God's message to us to a high standard and believe that our lives inside and outside of church should reflect our faith.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

In your opinion is there a cultic element in the independent Baptist movement,

Probably in some churches.

and if so, what should be done about it?

Nothing, short of dialog and discussion. People have the right to believe whatever they want. Freedom of religion, and all that.

 

[Pipedude]

The word "cult" is difficult to define. It has no scriptural usage to refer to and it is not a technical theological term.

When referring to the topic at hand (weird folks who do weird stuff), sociologists have done a pretty good job, in my opinion, of identifying certain patterns that are repeated over and over in certain groups: unquestioning obedience, isolation from outsiders, physical or psychological abuse, etc. These are "cultic elements" as the term is generally used. The term does not generally refer to "people with worse theology than what we're used to encountering." That's an old way of speaking, and it doesn't communicate much useful information.

IFBs will tend to breed this kind of cultic misbehavior more than most other Baptists for the simple reason that IFBs find their identity in separation for the sake of doctrinal purity, where other groups will put Jesus, love, and evangelism higher than doctrinal purity. The end-time Apostasy is nothing less than Christ and Antichrist in their final conflict; and when separation from others is identical to resisting the Apostasy, then loyalty to Christ willl mean unswerving adherence to the separatist movement. Naturally, some will take it farther than others.

The OP asked what we should do about it. I say Don't Worry, Be Happy. The movement is unraveling at the seams and will soon be in tatters. Likeminded people will form into new associations and, hopefully, guard against the errors of their forefathers.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Bro Cloud is correct in his assessment of Peter Ruckman.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fridaynews/news/2005/fridaynews050819.html

I, however, would differ in that I do not consider Ruckman a true IFB therefore his cultic beliefs would be outside the movement.

Are there still cultic tendencies within segments of the IFB? Probably so since the range is so broad. Does that mean we need to "throw out the baby with the bathwater?" Of course not. There have been many times when I have become frustrated with the IFB movement, but the vast majority are good, solid, Bible believing Christians who love God and other people.

It is not attacking the whole movement to admit that there are some cultic fringes who would identify themselves with us. In reply to the OP I tend to agree that one of the best things we can do is not to give them the publicity and attention they crave. Then they become "martyrs" for their convoluted cause.

 

[PASTOR MHG]

Bro Cloud is correct in his assessment of Peter Ruckman.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fridaynews/news/2005/fridaynews050819.html

I, however, would differ in that I do not consider Ruckman a true IFB therefore his cultic beliefs would be outside the movement.

Are there still cultic tendencies within segments of the IFB? Probably so since the range is so broad. Does that mean we need to "throw out the baby with the bathwater?" Of course not. There have been many times when I have become frustrated with the IFB movement, but the vast majority are good, solid, Bible believing Christians who love God and other people.

It is not attacking the whole movement to admit that there are some cultic fringes who would identify themselves with us. In reply to the OP I tend to agree that one of the best things we can do is not to give them the publicity and attention they crave. Then they become "martyrs" for their convoluted cause.

Please don't mistake this for an attempt to defend Ruckman, But what is your criteria for being IFB and why doesn't Ruckman fit the criteria?

There are so many different breeds of IFB, it would be very difficult to set many distinguishing marks on them.

Why is your definition of IFB the "true" definition?

Max

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

He doesn't hold to the fundamentals of the faith, putting his faith in one English translation as opposed to the original autographs.

 

[PASTOR MHG]

He doesn't hold to the fundamentals of the faith, putting his faith in one English translation as opposed to the original autographs.

You can't be serious! This is your only criteria for "true" IFB?

Not to turn this into a translations debate... but on a theological and historical level I think he would say that the "original autographs" are perfect and complete wanting nothing. On a practical level what good do the "original autographs" do me or you or the people you and I shepherd?
My people need the truth...they can't find it or have it in the "original autographs." They "do" have the truth in their English Bible however.

Your point is lacking something. The beauty of the IFB movement is its individuality and its independence. Individual soul liberty and the priesthood of every believer are our strengths, not to mention complete autonomy!

Max

 

[TheWinDork]

Please don't mistake this for an attempt to defend Ruckman, But what is your criteria for being IFB and why doesn't Ruckman fit the criteria?

There are so many different breeds of IFB, it would be very difficult to set many distinguishing marks on them.

Why is your definition of IFB the "true" definition?

Max

Ruckman teaches that the King James Version is the Inspired Word of God. and that there are Advanced Revelations contained in it as well, over the TR and also Originals. which is BLANTANT HERESY!

what the truth is, and anyone who's read David Cloud's writings knows, That the King James Version is the Preserved Word of God, for the English speaking people, Nothing more, nothing less... and that has been the classic position of Baptist's of old, for centuries. Although, there are a bunch in here, that totally disagree with that statement. and I repect thier views. (although, most of them, don't respect mine, at all.)

Ruckman's extremism started back in the 1970's, after a spat between Bob Jones Sr. and Jack Hyles over the KJV. and at one time, he was legit person among the IFB Churches, and even in the BBFI. When he got into the extremist views is when he became a outcast in the movement.

Only reason Ruckman has any kind of following now, is because of Jack Chick, and a few others who still cite him for references. and even Jack Chick, Bless his Heart, has even distanced himself from Ruckman in recent years. As has alot of his students, like Sam Gipp. Because of the language and multi-marriages. I can tell you this, We'd never allow a Ruckmanite in our Church.

-WTD

 

[tinytim]

I believe the def. of a "true" IFB lies in the "F"

I = not associated with associations, conventions etc.
F = standing for the fundamentals in Scripture.... All doctrine must come from scripture.
B = stand on the Baptist distinctives.

Now Ruckman passes the "I"
Some would say he even passes the "B"
But as for the "F", he fails... he holds to a doctrine of "one version onlyism" and that is clearly not found in Scripture... It even goes against Jesus, because Jesus used a different version than the underlying text for the KJV... (compare Luke 4:17-21 with Isaiah 61:1-3)
A true fundamentalist demands all doctrines to be based in the Scriptures... Ruckman is not a fundamentalist.

He may be a IB, but not a IFB.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I believe the def. of a "true" IFB lies in the "F"

I = not associated with associations, conventions etc.
F = standing for the fundamentals in Scripture.... All doctrine must come from scripture.
B = stand on the Baptist distinctives.

Pretty good definition, I'd say. I think that most people, myself included, tend to fall prey to using the modern world's definition of "fundamental", which is "Bible thumping KJVO lunatic", mixed with the true definition, and come up with something that is not articulate. You, however, have articulated quite well and succinctly.

 

[PASTOR MHG]

I believe the def. of a "true" IFB lies in the "F"

I = not associated with associations, conventions etc.
F = standing for the fundamentals in Scripture.... All doctrine must come from scripture.
B = stand on the Baptist distinctives.

Now Ruckman passes the "I"
Some would say he even passes the "B"
But as for the "F", he fails... he holds to a doctrine of "one version onlyism" and that is clearly not found in Scripture... It even goes against Jesus, because Jesus used a different version than the underlying text for the KJV... (compare Luke 4:17-21 with Isaiah 61:1-3)
A true fundamentalist demands all doctrines to be based in the Scriptures... Ruckman is not a fundamentalist.

He may be a IB, but not a IFB.

I think your definition of fundamentalist is a fairy tale. Not that that is not the ideal definition, which, by the way, I would agree with. However, there are many in the fundamentalist camp that would not fit your idealistic definition of all doctrine based on scripture. there are as varying of veiws in fundamentalism as C vs. A, pre-mill, post-mill, a-mill, pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, immersion vs. sprinkling, etc...

There is a right and a wrong to all of these issues...the wrong always falls into the area of a doctrine that is not based in scripture. You may not agree, but if you are going to isolate the term fundamentalist (from or within the IFB label) understand that historic fundamentalist came from all of these camps.

Max

 

[rbell]

I think your definition of fundamentalist is a fairy tale. Not that that is not the ideal definition, which, by the way, I would agree with. However, there are many in the fundamentalist camp that would not fit your idealistic definition of all doctrine based on scripture. there are as varying of veiws in fundamentalism as C vs. A, pre-mill, post-mill, a-mill, pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, immersion vs. sprinkling, etc...

There is a right and a wrong to all of these issues...the wrong always falls into the area of a doctrine that is not based in scripture. You may not agree, but if you are going to isolate the term fundamentalist (from or within the IFB label) understand that historic fundamentalist came from all of these camps.

Max

Maybe I'm just slow today...but I don't understand your post. Try again?

 

[John of Japan]

Please don't mistake this for an attempt to defend Ruckman, But what is your criteria for being IFB and why doesn't Ruckman fit the criteria?

There are so many different breeds of IFB, it would be very difficult to set many distinguishing marks on them.

Why is your definition of IFB the "true" definition?

Max

I just read the whole thread, and PASTOR MHG is the only one who got it right. There are many, many IFB groups, some quite different. So when the OP lumped us all together, I was disappointed. Does the OP mean GARB, FBF, SBF, BBF, or WBF types? Each of these groups are distinctively different. Outside of these fellowships are the independent independents who don't even think it's right to be in a fellowship!

When I was growing up we were all pretty much one body. So John R. Rice could be close friends with GARB evangelist Bob Sumner while also being close to SBF stalwart Lee Roberson. BBF churches could have Rice in to preach while disagreeing with him on storehouse tithing.

The movement is much larger now (10,000 churches by conservative estimate), and it is a big mistake to lump us all together as the OP does. So, I have supporting churches which are strictly KJVO, while others use the NKJV. I have supporting churches who might agree with rapprochement with the SBC, but others which think the SBC still has a long way to go to get the liberals out of its midst.

 

[El_Guero]

John,

I would add that all Bapitsts are much different than we were from 1800 to 1960 . . . the creep withing liberalism in all denominations began to affect Baptists in varying degrees at different times. However, the creep of liberalism coupled with an overall lessening of the value of being Baptist over the last 40 years has been a terrible blow to being 'Baptist'.

What was once indentifiable from coast to coast, is now blown to the many winds of modern and popular tv preachers . . . and authors.

So, not only have fellowships of Baptist churches matured in their formation of individual doctrine, we also have the deterioration of the level of knowledge in the pews . . .

I ramble, but I pray that the 2 cents were worth a penny . . .

I just read the whole thread, and PASTOR MHG is the only one who got it right. There are many, many IFB groups, some quite different. So when the OP lumped us all together, I was disappointed. Does the OP mean GARB, FBF, SBF, BBF, or WBF types? Each of these groups are distinctively different. Outside of these fellowships are the independent independents who don't even think it's right to be in a fellowship!

When I was growing up we were all pretty much one body. So John R. Rice could be close friends with GARB evangelist Bob Sumner while also being close to SBF stalwart Lee Roberson. BBF churches could have Rice in to preach while disagreeing with him on storehouse tithing.

The movement is much larger now (10,000 churches by conservative estimate), and it is a big mistake to lump us all together as the OP does. So, I have supporting churches which are strictly KJVO, while others use the NKJV. I have supporting churches who might agree with rapprochement with the SBC, but others which think the SBC still has a long way to go to get the liberals out of its midst.

 

[John of Japan]

John,

I would add that all Bapitsts are much different than we were from 1800 to 1960 . . . the creep withing liberalism in all denominations began to affect Baptists in varying degrees at different times. However, the creep of liberalism coupled with an overall lessening of the value of being Baptist over the last 40 years has been a terrible blow to being 'Baptist'.

What was once indentifiable from coast to coast, is now blown to the many winds of modern and popular tv preachers . . . and authors.

So, not only have fellowships of Baptist churches matured in their formation of individual doctrine, we also have the deterioration of the level of knowledge in the pews . . .

I ramble, but I pray that the 2 cents were worth a penny . . .

I'll give you a 100 yen coin for your two cents worth, El_Guero! You are on target. Baptists are so diverse now that it is hard to pin the name down. It gets easier if we are strict on the Baptist distinctives, but you are still right, IMO. :thumbsup:

 

[Squire Robertsson]

SNIP The movement is much larger now (10,000 churches by conservative estimate), and it is a big mistake to lump us all together as the OP does. SNIP
(bold mine, KR.)

Please remember the orignal poster is not an American. He lives in Northern Ireland. Hence, his question is that of an outsider looking for information.

If one looks at the many and various flavors of Baptists in these United States without an understanding of the issues involved, you'd be thinking "cultic." Most countries have only two at the most three sorts of Baptists. In most cases, there is the old line Baptist Union and then there are the non-Union churches.

 

[John of Japan]

Please remember the orignal poster is not an American. He lives in Northern Ireland. Hence, his question is that of an outsider looking for information.

If one looks at the many and various flavors of Baptists in these United States without an understanding of the issues involved, you'd be thinking "cultic." Most countries have only two at the most three sorts of Baptists. In most cases, there is the old line Baptist Union and then there are the non-Union churches.

Point taken, Squire.:thumbsup:

 

[gb93433]

John,

I would add that all Bapitsts are much different than we were from 1800 to 1960 . . . the creep withing liberalism in all denominations began to affect Baptists in varying degrees at different times. However, the creep of liberalism coupled with an overall lessening of the value of being Baptist over the last 40 years has been a terrible blow to being 'Baptist'.

When I first read some sermons of some of the first Baptists I was quite shocked at what they said. It was very poor by our standards of what is a fundamental Baptist today. I don't know of any Bible believing Christian who would interpret scripture like that today. God still used them.

Anyone know of any preachers who would close their eys and open the Bible and begin preaching from the verse they pointed their finger on without ever studying beforehand. That was their idea of the Holy Spirit.

Try to imagine what someone will do with the sermons of today which we think are great. Hopefuly we are right, but so did those preachers a few centuries back think they were right.

Amazing what God does despite us!!