New IFB Church Movement

I was saved and grew up in an IFB(Independant Fundamental Baptist) church. I am now 27 years old and I have seen a great variety of them. Some of them are Calvinistic(like one we attended for the last couple of years), some are arminian(like the one my parents were saved). But the things most have in common are these:

A large majority are KJV ONLY.
Most others if they are not KJV ONLY they are KJV in preference.
A large majority do not view themselves as Protestants, but a seperate exclusive section of Christians.
Most believe in some type of successionism of baptistic churches - some very far to the right hold to Landmarkism and Baptist Bride theology(only Baptists churches are the bride of Christ).
About half(mostly up north) are very conservative on music - only classical musical like organ, piano orchestra music are acceptable. Christian Contemporary music is viewed as a tool of the devil.
Some that are really old fashioned don't allow their women to wear pants.
Most preach tithing(vehemetly).
Most teach personal seperation - this is a big one and it basically means as a Christian you should not go to Movie Theatres,Smoke,drink and a laundry list of other things as well.

About 99 percent of them have an altar call at the end of each service where a preacher proclaims that you need to come down to the front and make of the church to get saved or make a decision for Christ(if you stay in your pew it probably won't amount to much).

Another thing 99 percent of IFBs have in common is that they look at non-IFBs and especially non-Baptists as second class Christians. If you are not an IFB or especially not a Baptist then you are lucky if you are even saved.

I know this to be true as I was a part of the crowd and grew up in many IFB churches(as my father traveled for work).

About 5 years ago I found a new kind of IFB church. I hope that God will bless and many more of these will sprout up across our land.

Just last year I found another church like this new one so they are up and coming.

Here is how they do things:
They use the NIV version as their pulpit bible(although they would not forbid someone from preaching from and NASB or a KJV or any other solid modern translation).

They use a blend of traditional hymns with new praise music. They use overhead projectors for the music.

They preach the Word of God and not their opinion - they are not afraid to let the Holy Spirit do his job with people as to their personal standards.

They do not have an altar call, instead they have prayer rooms in the back where someone can go if they want someone to assist them.

While they are IFBs and they preach Soverign Grace theology, they are not puffed up about it.

They still seperate corporately when it comes sending out missionaries but they view themselves as Protestants and as a part of the Universal body of Christ.

I may be wrong on this and I will have to check but I believe the Pastor of this church started out about 10 years with a traditional congregation of about 200 and the church today is building its third auditoriam(because it outgrew the first two) and has about 1700 in attendance each Sunday.

When I first walked into this church and heard the Pastor preaching from the NIV and heard the worship music and especially when I did not see an altar call my feathers were a bit ruffeled. Then I began to investigage things like the translation issue, the altar call and music and found out that there was nothing wrong with what they were doing, in fact it was better. They wanted to sing to the Lord a new song(not the same hymns every week) while still using the great old hymns of the faith, they wanted people to understand the Word of God in their common language(not the archaic language of 400 years ago). They wanted the Holy Spirit to be the changer of mens hearts and lives and not human mechanisms like the Altar call. They want their people to understand their distintive Baptist heritage but they do not want them to become denomonational biggets.

It is a breadth of fresh air.

Ifbreformer

 

What is wrong with the church I listed?

It is WRONG to confine people to one English translation of the Bible and tell that if they are studying from anyother version the Holy Spirit will not speak through it.

It is WRONG to teach a preference or opinion on the same level as the clear commands and teachings of the Word of God.

It is WRONG to say that if music is modern or upbeat it is a tool of the devil.

It is WRONG for a preacher to say things like I just heard two weeks ago during and invitation where I was the song leader - he said "I saw some of you raise your hands to make a decision - now why have you not come down to the altar to make the decision - God is waiting down here to talk to you - you think you'll make it there - but you won't you need to come down this aisle" -things like that are clear heresy.

It is WRONG to say that a church is not Baptist they have no authority to preach the Gospel.

So those are just a few things that are wrong.

I have studied church history quite extensively and I understand why you believe Baptists are not Protestants. I have read books like "The Trail of Blood" and other Baptist succession books. I have also read more balance Baptist Historic accounts and believe there is much assumption and presupposition in accounts like the trail of blood.

The problem is that they try to link to people like the donatists and novatians but they gloss over problems these people had even from historians who treated them fairly. Just because some groups rebaptized does not make them like us. An example would be that the Dontatists believed that if a Christian gave in during persecution he could not be brought back to repentance or allowed back into the church even if he tried to repent.

I do not doubt that there have been persons throughout church history who held to similar Baptist tenents. But the modern day Baptists clearly find their origins from a English Seperatists. The true Anabaptists who are consistant with their heritage from the 1500s can be found in the Mennontites and Hutterites.

The Anabaptists that many try to link to were Arminian in theology and pacifists.

It is very easy from church history to show that many of the English Seperatist Churches were born out of the Anglican and Puritan Churches. We stand together with historic Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans and other Protestants in proclaiming salvation by grace through faith. We stand with them in "protesting" the abuses and errors of the Roman Catholic Church. We stand together in the universal body of Christ.

So are we Protestants(do we protest the abuses of Rome?)absolutely!

Where we are different is church structure and baptism, and communion - these are the three main differences. We believe in autonomy, most Protestant churches do not. We believe in believer's baptism - most Protestant churches do not.We believe communion is only cermonial and pictorial, some them believe it is more.

But we can learn a great deal from non-baptist Protestant preachers like Martin Luther, John Calvin, George Whitefield, John Knox and Jonathan Edwards. We simply agree to disagree with them in some areas.

1 Corinthians 14:8-11(NIV)
"8Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me."

If people cannot clearly(not rufly) understand the language of the translation then a newer translation which is in our common tongue(in 2003) and not from (1611 and 1789)like the KJV should be used.

Men fought bled and died so the common man could have the Bible in his common speach - yes we can understand many parts of the KJV, but it is not how we speak today - it is not in the common man's tongue as the apostles delivered in the koine greek 2000 years ago.

To lift up a language from 400 years ago as something that is holy when Christ and his apostles never spoke that language is historically and biblically wrong.

I agree that much of what Hollywood puts out today is filth - look at the TV realtity shows that flant all the nudity and sex. I agree, but there is still good material and good movies out there. I use the rating systems and look into movies before we watch them. Sometimes we have to stop a movie while we are watching it. You do need to be careful, yet there is still some good stuff out there.

I love a good sci-fi flick like Star Trek or Star Wars or a good murder mystery or chase movie like US Marshals. Certainly there may be some things said or done I disagree with - but what is the overall picture?

When you go to a professional football game can you be pretty sure that people are going to use foul or vulgar language - or will people be getting drunk and spilling their bear? You don't go for things do you even though you expect to see them - you go for the football game.

We tend especially in Baptist Churches to tear down anything to do with movies but we lift up professional sports like it is next to godliness.
It is not uncommon to hear a Baptist preacher talking about his favorite professioanal sports teams from the pulpit - but if he were to use a movie character from a movie as an example he would be booed off the stage in some churches- do we see little problem here?

IFBReformer

[edited to correct first quote code to function correctly]

[ March 26, 2003, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

Mark,

Thanks for you civil responses as well. You know how IFBs can sometimes be and I have tried to change my tone in last few years - even on things I feel strongly about. "speak the truth in love" that is my motto - at least I try to live up to that.

As far as the analogy that Pastor gave, "here, eat this good candy, there is just a little poisen in it." here is my response:

I have heard that many times before growing up. Here is a quote from a previous Pastor that I listened to "Sometimes you have to chew up the meat and spit out the bones". If the meat has two many bones in it than you probably don't want to eat it at all - but if there a few bones and you can pick or spit them out then it is still usefull.

This applies to many areas of life - not just movies, here are some examples:

When I go to college at a secular university I have to chew the meat(get the education I need) and spit out the bones(don't listen to some ungodly philosphies of the some professors).

When I am reading my Newsweek magazine I have to chew the meat(get my new info) and spit out the bones(ungodly opinions and maybe some photos that I do not like).

When I read books by Martin Luther or John Calvin I have to chew the meat(understand the depth of knowledge on subjects we agree on like the Soverignty of God and Salvation by Grace through faith) and spit out the bones(like subjects on baptism and communion).

So it is when I rent a movie, I look over the box or advertisment carefully - check the rating and why it is rated that way and then make an informed decision. Will this movie have to many bones(filth and swearing and nudity) where it is not worth trying to get to the meat? Or may it have a word or phrase or two that I would disagree but overall the movie is good?

Many people would say right away after reading the analogies above that the things above are necessary but movies are not. Are they really necessary:

Do I have to go to college? No I could survive without it.

Do I have read any secular magazines like Newsweek? No I could survive without it.

Do I even need to have a television? No I could survive without it.

If we are consistant in this(if any part is wrong is is all wrong) then we need to lock ourselves up in a closet and never come out.

If every other word in a movie is vulgar than I have no use for it - let me say that right up front - too many bones to pick out for the little bit of meat I will find.

But if I am watching a movie and the character gets hurt and swears - would I do that know - but is that real, yes - is it in context - yes. I am not watching the story for that though, I am watching it for the story as whole.

Basically we apply a much higher and much more demanding standard to movies and tv than we do to other things in life. I prefer to have a consistant standard accross the board. I find it interesting though that most of my IFB friends who applie such a rigiourous and inconsistant standard to movies and tv and music do not apply this same standard to professioanal sports which they all love.

Talk to you later

IFBReformer

 

First a note to the moderators:
This as far as I will go in this forum on the translation issue - otherwise we can move it over there.

Homebound,

I am going to try very hard not to use your tone have the attitude you are displaying here(ex. Sounds to me like someone got their feelings hurt and is now bashing the church. Sounds like you found a church that makes you and your flesh feel good.)

The KJV translators used the same passage I did and listen how they used in regard to their translation philopshy:

Excerpt from The Translator to the Reader KJV 1611:

"Happy is the man that delighted in the Scripture, and thrice happy that meditateth in it day and night.

TRANSLATION NECESSARY

But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? as it is written, "Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be tohim that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shall be a Barbarian to me." [1 Cor 14] The Apostle excepteth no tongue; not Hebrew the ancientest, not Greek the most copious, not Latin the finest. Nature taught a natural man to confess, that all of us in those tongues which we do not understand, are plainly deaf; we may turn the deaf ear unto them. The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous; [Clem. Alex. 1 Strom.] so the Roman did the Syrian, and the Jew (even S. Jerome himself called the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because it was strange to so many) [S. Jerome. Damaso.] so the Emperor of Constantinople [Michael, Theophili fil.] calleth the Latin tongue, barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do storm at it: [2::Tom. Concil. ex edit. Petri Crab] so the Jews long before Christ called all other nations, Lognazim, which islittle better than barbarous. Therefore as one complaineth, that always in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter: [Cicero 5::de finibus.] so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readiness. Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away thestone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered [Gen 29:10]. Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, "Read this, I pray thee," he was fain to make this answer, "I cannot, for it is sealed." [Isa 29:11]"

You said "The Bible is not going to read like your every day novel." - well thats funny because thats exactly how it read when it was originally written in koine greek. God could have had the apostles write the Bible in the classical greek of the day - the fancy greek, but he had them write it in the common trade language of the day.

You said "The Bible does not need to be rewritten, but reread." I agree 100% that the Bible does not need to be re-written, only re-translated from its original tongues into the common man's language. If we must do this every 150 years or so to keep in fresh in the common man's language then so be it.

You quoted "1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." as the reason why people cannot understand the KJV as well as newer translations in modern English.

Paul did not say "the natural man receiveth not 400 year old english" he said "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God"

It is foolishness to the world that we believe Jesus was God in the flesh.

It is foolishness to the world that we believe the blood of Jesus Christ cleanes us from all unrighteousness.

It is foolishness to the world that we believe God created the earth.

The world cannot understand the concepts taught in scripture - Paul is not speaking of grammer. In fact I Corinthians 14 makes God's opinion on grammer very clear.

Just some food for thought.

IFBReformer

 

chargrove,

I appreciate your observations and agree to a point. I think many IFB churches have taken ecclesiatical seperation to an extreme the Bible does not take it.

Yet no seperation leads to what many new evangelical churches are today - they don't know who they are or what they stand for - they are just a social club.

But as my screen name implies - I do believe the IFB movement needs some reforming. It has moved in some directions that are wrong in my understanding of the scriptures. They have raised tradition to the same level as clear Biblical commands.

As far as the missions view, in my opinion I think many SBC churches are a little slanted on missions. I have visted a few and from what I see their state and national mission convention is the most important thing.

International missions is a good thing, but it is not the first mission of the church - local missions are.

Look at Christ's priority for evangelism:
Most people don't understand that there is an order in the great commission.

Acts 1:8
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

What is the order:

1. Jerusalem(your neheiborhood and city)
2. Judea(Your state)
3. Samaria(other states in your country)
4. the ends of the earth(the rest of the world)

So once you have a thriving local ministry that is permiating your city and state own country with the Gospel, then by all means support international missions.

Sometimes though God will call someone from your church to a mission - to start another church in your state - thats great, and if your church can help so be it. But let the Holy Spirit be the one who prompts this and not missions conventions.


Some churches have mixed up this order though - they start a brand new local church and cannot even afford to pay there Pastor full time and they are already trying to support international missions.

I understand the motivation in some cases - because they have been taught that is what the Bible teaches - others though it is for show.

"We have this many missionaries in this many countries"- they say. But how are they doing in their most important mission - right in their back yard?

This not just a problem with the SBC though, I have been in IFB churches with the same inbalance.

Just some thoughts

IFBReformer