IFB Leaders On Expository Preaching

[Squire Robertsson]

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. I am taking the position that the IFB movement is large enough and decentralized enough that blanket statements don't work. What is true of some segments may or may not be true of others. I am not denying the existence of the deficits you cited above. I am saying they do not pertain to all segments of IFBdom. Good night, there are "IFB" churches I wouldn't attend the second time or maybe even the first.
How much do you know of IFBdom in Northern California? Out here, the what came to be the FBFI segment coalesced around the leadership of Arno Q. and G. Archer Wenigar with David Innes and John Mincy as follow ons.

As for Heb 12:14, are you familiar with the issues in the Northern Baptist Convention (in the period of 1920-1948) that lead to the establishment of the GARBC, and the CBA\FBF? There were good and sufficient reasons for the separation of these two bodies from the NBC. David O. Beal's In Search of Purity give s good overview of that situation.

Perhaps try giving others the benefit of the doubt. It wouldn't be charitable on my account (or probably tolerable on yours since I see you're an administrator) if I said to you 'I'm not too sure that your familiar with the movement' after you claimed the contrary; Hebrews 12:14. SNIP

 

[Truth Seeker]

I believe J. Frank Norris started the IFB's in the South. Who do you think started the IFB's in the North?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

In the north, after the Triennial Convention broke up and the NBC was organized in 1907, inter-church work was organized along functional lines without a central authority.

• By 1907, Modernism and Liberalism had already found homes in the various Northern Baptist Seminaries and Mission Societies.
• The Fundamentals were first published in the period 1910-1915.
• The Fundamental Fellowship of the Northern Baptist Convention organized its self as a pre-meeting of the Convention in 1920.
• The General Association of Regular Baptist Churches grew out of the FFNBC. It was organized and separated from the NBC in 1932.
• It's worth noting that many Northern Baptist Churches did not join the NBC in 1907. Some of these churches helped form the GARBC.

The bottom line is there wasn't a single big fish like Norris in the North. There were quite a few medium sized ones. This is not the place to write a book. So, I recommend In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism since 1850 by David O. Beale.

I believe J. Frank Norris started the IFB's in the South. Who do you think started the IFB's in the North?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

It's also worth noting that while smaller in numbers than the Baptists, there are Fundamental Presbyterians, Methodists and Bible Churches.

 

[Truth Seeker]

I could be wrong but I think "bible churches" considered themselves to be conservative evangelicals instead of fundamentalists. Of course this may vary from church to church.

 

[agedman]

The problem that I find with the "IFB" world is the fight no longer remained focused upon modernism and modernists that compromised upon the fundamentals of the Scriptures.

Rather, the fundamentalists turned to who was more "right with God." As such, the teaching / preaching became less and less expository. They as a group left balance and ran to fighting each other.

In this world of IFB does one hear a specific person of a seminary or college being shown as a modernist and a call for people not to be asleep at the discernment. That one does not fellowship with the modernist and expect to not be spotted and marred.

Expository preaching should also be topic oriented. Going verse by verse isn't enough unless the teaching / preaching presents the main and lessor principles supported by other Scriptures. Doing so provides the listener with not merely a statement by the writer being discussed but how that statement is interconnected and relies upon basic principles of Scriptures.

 

[Internet Theologian]

The problem that I find with the "IFB" world is the fight no longer remained focused upon modernism and modernists that compromised upon the fundamentals of the Scriptures.

Rather, the fundamentalists turned to who was more "right with God." As such, the teaching / preaching became less and less expository. They as a group left balance and ran to fighting each other....SNIP

The fight became over issues. With each other, who was more 'holy', pants, movies etc. 99% of the preaching I've heard in that fundy camp was a text and then a tantrum style preaching, the text was just a diving board. Little to nothing scholarly or even remotely expositional. Often it was said 'this preacher is one of the best expository preachers among us' when in fact the person was a topical preacher, but not that it doesn't have its place.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

While your critiques of IFBdom fit a good sized sub-sector, they do not fit others. Have you followed upon this post (#2 of this thread):

The men quoted only represent a fraction of IFBdom. And their fraction is shrinking as time passes. I recommend you look up John Vaughn, David Innes of San Francisco, and Joel,Tetreau on Sermon Audio.

San Francisco will lead you to the sermon section of the Hamilton Square Baptist Church website.

And I will agree that many a Fundamentalist wrongly re-fought the last war. A good comparison is how the French sought to re-fight and win the Franco-Prussian War in 1914.

 

[John of Japan]

I believe J. Frank Norris started the IFB's in the South. Who do you think started the IFB's in the North?

Norris founded the World Baptist Fellowship (WBF) and was looked up to by many in the 30's, but his nastiness alienated almost all. The BBF was founded by men who broke fellowship with Norris because of his need to rule everything, and it is quite large today (especially in the West), while the WBF remains quite small.

In the rest of the Southern IFB movement, men like John R. Rice and Lee Roberson came to the fore during and after WW2, while Norris' influence faded and he ceased to be a leader outside his own small group.

 

[John of Japan]

I could be wrong but I think "bible churches" considered themselves to be conservative evangelicals instead of fundamentalists. Of course this may vary from church to church.

My understanding of "Bible churches" is that there is a range of positions. I've known some to eventually rename themselves "Baptist." The IFCA churches still call themselves fundamentalist, but would not be aligned with most IFB churches (http://www.ifca.org/default.asp?sec_id=140007594).

On the other hand, there is a "Bible church" in our town aligned with the hyper-dispensationalists who go even further in ecclesiastical separation than the usual IFB church.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

I could be wrong but I think "bible churches" considered themselves to be conservative evangelicals instead of fundamentalists. Of course this may vary from church to church.

Adding to JoJ's more thorough reply: In my (limited) experience with local assemblies calling themselves "Bible Churches", they have all been fundamental in doctrine and thoroughly baptistic in practice.

 

[agedman]

Adding to JoJ's more thorough reply: In my (limited) experience with local assemblies calling themselves "Bible Churches", they have all been fundamental in doctrine and thoroughly baptistic in practice.

I agree, and find that true in our area, also. A number of former "Baptists" swell the numbers of the Bible churches. I wonder if it is because of the shallow "not right with God" teaching that they had pushed down their throats.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Adding to JoJ's more thorough reply: In my (limited) experience with local assemblies calling themselves "Bible Churches", they have all been fundamental in doctrine and thoroughly baptistic in practice.

Would you mind elaborating on what you mean and by example what these churches taught that made them fundamental in doctrine?

 

[agedman]

Most "Bible Churches" in my area (which has quite a few) are primarily oriented around Doctrines of Grace.

Those churches usually baptize by immersion, hold to the two sacraments of baptism and Lord's supper, and hold to the fundamental views of the virgin birth, blood atonement, inerrancy of Scriptures, deity of Christ, and bodily resurrection.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

I think #54 (2nd paragraph) would be very similar to what I'd use to answer #53, though I might add Christ's sinless life and immanent return to the list. I would substitute "ordinances" for "sacraments", because (to me, at least) the latter word implies salvific value, and I would not be interested in attending a church where baptism/Lord's supper were held to be a necessary part of one's salvation.

 

[thjplgvp]

It seems each time I log in (which is not often these days) I find a thread in which someone is hammering IBF as a whole rather than having the courage to name who it is that has offended them or what church they are speaking against. Why is that? I have been IFB for over 40 years and have been members of IFB churches in San Diego, Springfield Mo., Spring Valley Ca., Ponca City Oklahoma, Blackwell, OK and have visited in and preached in many IFB churches and apart from first Baptist in Hammond, Calvary Baptist in El Central California and a church we visited once in Arkansas I have not seen anyone who was a cult leader though many were hard preachers who strayed into preference from time to time.

Have people been hurt, been treated horrible by men in IFB pulpits yes indeed but I would also say I have heard my share of stories over the years about similar things having happened in non-IFB churches as well.

I find it interesting that when someone has a bad experience with a particular church for no reason they can articulate they brand all churches in that category as cancerous. Yet you are offended when asked to share why you feel that way, you continue to give vague reasons or point to a man who has been dead for 20 years whose atrocities are already well known as the icon of all IFB churches as your valid reason.

Have you not read 2 Peter 1:5 add to your faith virtue and to virtue knowledge? Virtue is moral excellence not speaking particularly of sexual purity but our interactions with one another meaning treating people with respect and being cordial, nice if you will and not hiding behind a façade of integrity while you rip good people apart so you can feel spiritual?

I would suggest that in the future you treat people with a little respect and understand you cannot take the actions of one or two or even 15 or 20 pastors and brand literally hundreds of men and churches as ungodly or cultic because of their actions.

thjplgvp

 

[thjplgvp]

There was another post here earlier refuting my post but it is no longer here none the less I saw and read it and will respond to it.

My friend,


Allow me to delve a little deeper into the debate if you will. There is currently a movement to reverse the damage we as IFB participants have brought upon ourselves, one daring young pastor has even referred to it as the “New Independent Baptist” and though he has been scolded by a few I am surprised at how many have shown him support in his declaration. http://joshteis.com/home/2015/12/01/the-new-independent-baptist/


He is seeing what I have been seeing for the last 20 years and that is that we as IFB participants understand we have done many things wrong primarily in the conduct of relationships one with another. We no longer want the stigma of “fighting Baptists” but want to concentrate on bible based ministries that truly reach out to others and show the love of Christ not just in word but indeed. This includes acknowledging that churches have the liberty to be different and that spirituality is not based on you living your Christianity exactly like me or else mentality. More and more ministers are recognizing the need for counseling both in marriage and life and are setting aside great portions of their time to minister to those people in need.


This past year I had the opportunity to substitute teach in an IFB college near me in a class called “Practical Apologetics”. This class was designed to help students begin to understand the types of questions they will be asked in the ministry. We stressed to these young men the need to defend our Baptist distinctives from the word of God without anger and without the need to toss off questions as being quarrelsome. Accepting that people want answers and they are coming to those who they believe have the answers. We have instructed these young men to understand they will have to diligently study and not be arrogant but soft spoken and humble in their responses and not take it personal if there is continued questioning by those they are instructing. I have been blessed in seeing these college seniors recognize that the old answers of “bless God that’s the way it’s going to be” is no longer a valid answer and that many times there is no blanket biblical answer for some questions and they will have to look at each challenge from all sides and asking themselves if I make this decision how will it affect my integrity moving forward.

We understand we have a history that is working against us in some ways but we also have a history that is rich in that we understand that many of our forefathers paid an ultimate price for their faithfulness to God and the doctrines of the Word of God. We humbly salute those who have gone before us and while we understand that through the ages many men identified today as Baptists held heretical beliefs in some area they none the less were part of a progression of witnesses for Christ and the defense of the word of God and we owe them a great debt.


I understand your disdain for IFB but I beg you to understand that not all IFB participants are icons of wickedness within the movement and the vast majority of us are people who love the Lord and hold the doctrines of God’s word as sacred. We are delighted that there is a “new independent Baptist” on the horizon. We need to pray for these men that their zeal be according to knowledge.


thjplgvp

 

[Internet Theologian]

Brother thjplgvp, keep in mind that there is nothing stated that says all are wrong.

That there are good fundy churches is a given, correct? Why argue that?

The thing that is not a given is the fact there are many that are abusive, and some will never be mentioned in public. The abuse of legalism, control, personality worship, dictatorial rule, pulpit crimes, false teachings, physical and verbal abuse all exist.

Would to God all these things were spoken against but instead the messenger and messengers have to be maligned and this is not contrary to the behavior mentioned but unfortunately buffers it. Books have been written, documentaries, groups have been founded, testimonies have been given and the fundies in general malign them and look for a weakness on the person and persons and then assault them and their character.

You and others can sweep it under a rug, count me an enemy, malign me, malign others, accuse falsely of broad-brushing, and for that I have no control, and unfortunately this is the general reaction of fundies.

It's like talking of how good ones eye sight is, how good ones heart is, how healthy ones brain is all the while the doctor is telling the same about the stage 4 cancer.

God bless.

 

[Salty]

Can I throw a monkey wrench in here?
Who thinks a local church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention can be independent and fundamental? (Notice I did NOT capitalized the "i" and "f"

 

[agedman]

... I have not seen anyone who was a cult leader though many were hard preachers who strayed into preference from time to time.

Have people been hurt, been treated horrible by men in IFB pulpits yes indeed but I would also say I have heard my share of stories over the years about similar things having happened in non-IFB churches as well.

I find it interesting that when someone has a bad experience with a particular church for no reason they can articulate they brand all churches in that category as cancerous. Yet you are offended when asked to share why you feel that way, you continue to give vague reasons or point to a man who has been dead for 20 years whose atrocities are already well known as the icon of all IFB churches as your valid reason. ...

Until those churches who supported and h0ld those pastors (even dead ones) in esteem, actually publish the truth, call for a discredit that person's "ministry," and humbly work to heal all wounded by those "preachers," there is little other than the judgment of God upon those assemblies.

It matters little that the perverts died some time ago. Their influence lives on in people who emulate them, esteem them, and present that all manner of evidence as mere fabrications.

It is common in both SB and IFB churches. Such is not in the past and the cover ups continue to this day. Why do you think a leader can fail in morals and ministries and think they have the right to again be a pastor? Because the typical assembly doesn't have the righteousness of God to esteem holiness over reputation, to place loyalty to God above loyalty to family, friends, and preacher.