Featured Please explain Baptist and Independent Baptist

Firstly, this is a common misconception. While steriotypically IFB churches are KJVO, this is not always the case. Each church has the freedom to decide whether or not they want to hold to that position.

The main difference between IFB and other Baptists is that each church has the authority to choose it's own stances on everything from doctrine to standards; hence the term "independent". While other Baptists have this freedom (ie, Southern Baptist), IFB have no commitee offering guidance or issuing edicts or anything.

With this freedom comes great diversity. The steriotypical IFB is the steriotype because that type of IFB are the bigger churches, and most well known. I've visited IFB churches that I would consider to be liberal, and I've visited IFB churches that would consider me liberal.

Again, while there are steriotypes, it's only because the most well known IFB are like that. Every IFB church can choose for itself.

 

Salty, I did not mean to make it sound as if other baptists could not choose for themselves. In fact, I purposely added the phrase

I understand that SB churches have no obligation to follow everything that the SBC puts out, IFB don't have anyone even putting out things. If there are leaders that are putting out guidance to follow in the IFB movement, then they are IFB in name only. The whole reason to be IFB is just that, to be independent.

I agree completely that some of the "steriotypical" IFB are small churches as well. But my point was that the reason the steriotype is even there is because of big churches like the one in Hammond.

The statement about some SBC being more independent that IFB made me laugh. Not at the statement, but because I've experienced it first hand. Some IFB follow another church so much that the church they are following might as well be an organization issuing edicts to follow. Personally, I don't have any problem with SBC or anyone else calling themselves inedependent, because I understand that they do have that freedom.

 

First some negative history.
For a number of decades beginning about the mid 60's the IFB became enthralled with the "fundamental" part of that title.

There began the self glorification that a certain grouping or church was not as "fundamental" as their church.

Many adopted man generated standards of what was significant to God and a person was not "right with God" if some "fundamental" standard was ignored.

Now, to the aspects of how that plays out between the two groups.

The typical SBC church continues to be viewed by the IFBers as worldly and not holding to the "fundamentals" of the faith.

Originally, the IFB churches were merely independent from a convention, and fundamental in doctrine (virgin birth, blood atonement, salvation by grace alone, ...). Many preachers of the SBC held social ties to organizations such as rotaries, lions clubs, masons, country clubs ... and the IFB preachers considered these associations as being compromising the testimony of Christ. I remember when the SBC church would hold dances in the fellowship hall, and wedding parties when the punch was "spiked." I know this wasn't convention wide, but the fact that it did go on fed the IFB view of the SBC departure from the fundamental doctrines.

The IFB churches supported universities and Bible colleges separate from the SBC because they viewed the SBC schools such as Baylor here in Texas as teaching contrary to the Scriptures and hiring professors who were not even saved and denied the fundamentals.

Many IFB pastors and evangelists of the past came out (or were kicked out) of the SBC. Roloff and Rice were both graduates of Baylor. I was thinking that Criswell was the song leader for Rice for a short time. Anyway, when Baylor (which used to be more strict than Bob Jones) moved to "modernism" the IFB pastors separated further from the SBC churches. Some folks forget that Baylor was segregated from the beginning up to somewhere in the late 60's and contributed to the "modernist" by not continuing segregation.

Please note that segregation was a hot button issue. It wasn't just a "southern" problem. Although many IFB churches were integrated, they didn't particularly want the colleges that way because of the mixed dating marriage problem it might bring. Even in this day, there is a racial sting attached to such matches. Very few SBC schools and seminaries were not segregated by both race and even gender throughout much of the early to mid 1900's. Gender was abolished but racial divides continued for more time.

Can you imagine a "mixed gender dorm" at any fundamental school? That will give you some idea of the divide the SBC and IFB have on just one issue of schooling.

There also became a huge problem with the convention and the cooperative program of the SBC. At one time the cooperative program ruled the convention and in my opinion was bold about throwing support behind pastors and programs without regard to righteousness. Many errors and deceitful coverups were kept from the general knowledge of the local pastors and churches. As a result, the IFBers would bring a certain accountability to the mission efforts by supporting directly and creating cooperating mission boards. I am not saying that there were not errors and excess in the IFB side, but this was again a reflection of the view (right or wrong) that the IFB had toward the SBC.

Seminaries of the SBC were and still are considered hot beds of liberalism (anathema to the IFBer). In comparison the IFBer would embrace schools of Bible such as: Tennessee Temple, which was considered an IFB school even though it was a SBC church. BJU, although it was started by a Methodist, the school became more IFB supported than any other group. Maranatha and Pillsbury graduates were viewed more favorably than a Southern Seminary graduate, because of the "liberalism" that had infested the SBC schooling (stating the view of the IFBer).

Generally the IFB folks are independent republicans. Rare it is to find a social democrat like Mark White, Ann Richards, Jimmy Carter, (all noted SBC affiliated - the first two graduates of Baylor) in the ranks of membership of an IFB church.

I could write more, but you kind of get the idea.

If you take a SBC church of the 50's that would be the IFB church of the 60's. If you take the SBC church of the 60's that would be the IFB church of the 70's and much of the 80's. If you take the SBC church of today, that would be the IFB church of the 90's.

As the world becomes more "modernistic" so has the church. There are very few that don't follow the trends some lagging far behind. And those that don't are highly criticized and ridiculed by the "modernists."

A larger group of older pastors are seeing the end of their ministry not with the selection of a person like them, but a person who brings modernists ideas and ways. It is dividing congregations, and disheartening a greater number of older believers who feel disenfranchised.

 

isn;t the biggest difference involving their understanding of 'biblical seperation", as those churches tend to stay isolated away from mainstream baptists even, at least my experiences with them here in mi!

 

John R. Rice and J. Frank Norris led the specific fight against Baylor because of a prof who taught Darwinian evolution. (I don't remember his name.) Criswell was not Rice's song leader that I remember, but was called to preach under him, an as a boy of 12, maybe, told JRR he would go to Baylor and get a big Baylor belt buckle like JRR had.

The FMB had theologically liberal missionaries right up until they instituted the requirement that missionaries sign the Faith and Message. I know, I went to Japanese language school with them.

Many fundamentalists are watching closely the developments in the SBC. My remaining doubt in the area of missions is that the damage done by the liberalism still exists on the mission fields of the world.

Temple never was an SBC school, it was always independent. In fact, that was precisely the reason that Lee Roberson came out of the SBC: they would not recognize Temple. So Highland Park BC and Temple were both independent Baptist from shortly after WW2 until just recently, when they both re-entered the SBC (and are looked at a little suspiciously, according to an SBC friend here on the BB).

Take the word "liberalism" out of quotes and you have it right. John R. Rice carefully documented real theological liberalism in the SBC schools in the Sword of the Lord throughout the '60's and '70's, putting it all together in a book of newspaper clippings and the like entitled, Southern Baptist Wolves in Sheeps' Clothing.

Reference the recent history of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. An SEBC prof who was there back in the day told me how the liberals would mock the conservatives from the chapel pulpit. Then when the changes came re the Faith and Mission, the liberals left en masse and started their own seminary, declaring that SEBC would soon close its doors.

Not sure what you mean by the term "modernist." Please enlighten. The word is rarely used in IFB circles today.

 

I'm familiar with many Southern Baptist churches which are every bit as conservative as some IFB churches. I remember that even in my own church back in the late 1960s and early 1970s our pastor and staff openly admired with some IFB leaders, because our own denominational structure was riddled with liberals. But, we soon backed away from the fundamentalist label after we saw it becoming synonymous with legalism.

By that, I mean that we found ourselves judging others (and being judged) by the length of skirts on women, hair length on men. It was sort of "we don't smoke, drink or chew, or go with girls that do."

We who attended Sunday morning, Sunday night and Wednesday were far more spiritual that those who didn't come to mid-week prayer meeting.

I'm glad to say our SBC church began to move away from such legalism by the mid-1970s, while remaining solidly conservative in our theology.

Well, maybe we've loosened up a bit. My pastor often preaches without a coat and tie.
And I noticed tonight that not a single man in our worship service had a suit on.

 

Time has proven how right the fundamentalists were to oppose the liberalism in the NBC, since now they have gone so far as to ordain homosexual "preachers."

In my library in Japan I have Chester Tulga's The Case Against Modernism in Foreign Missions. Tulga carefully documented the rampant liberalism among missionaries under the NBC board, which as I remember was the main impetus for the fundamentalist opposition to the NBC leadership.

 

Please define Modernists/liberalists, as remmember that when say Chrsitianity Today, under carl henry came out as the "new Evangelicalism", they were being tagged by Fundementals to some sgree as being 'modernists"

And some saw the "new evangelicals" becoming liberal by adopting bibles versions such as Niv/nasb!

 

I don't want to argue or fight, just asking how you would define those 2 terms being used!