The future of the Independent Baptist movement? What do we need to address?

Hey Doc,

Thanks for making things so clear, and welcome, even if you only get to pop in!

 

Calvin "articulated" only what he was able to "see", but was definitely blind to the whole enchilada.

I love the way you calvinist subject others to your doctrine, but God is the Authority, not you.

One of the BIGGEST contradictions ever heard. Jesus came seeking and to save sinners, learn that. God also is not as slack as the Calvinists like to make Him by their man-made doctrine. The goodpleasure of His will is to save all who will come to Him in repentence. He knows who will and who won't. He knows when they will and when they didn't, He also knows there are many who will never. That is His Omniscience. Learn what the irrelevency aspect of time is and stop trying to mandate time is already set. Time changes things, God does not change. God has placed an ultimatim before all men. God's goodpleasure is subjective, but man is in the objective role, learn that

The entire doctrine of Calvinism surrounds the teachings of John Calvin, thus it's name. It just may be that the reason why Calvinists are so subjective is because their mother is so subjective. They are protestants/catholics, that would explain why Calvin hated Anabaptists so much, just as catholics do.:thumbsup:

 

I wrote a sharp retort to your comments and then erased them so this thread would hopefully not become another ugly brawl over calvinism. But to stick to the OP, just what is there about calvinism that threatens the future of the IFB movement? Then the history baptists in general is indeed a threat, and should be ignored. And, it is ignored. Maybe that's why I didn't know the true history of baptists till I started learning it from sources outside the IFB movement. Watch out IFB, the calvinist boogey-man is comin to get ya!

 

RE: what is there about Calvinism...

To JD

"I wrote a sharp retort to your comments and then erased them so this thread would hopefully not become another ugly brawl over Calvinism. But to stick to the OP, just what is there about Calvinism that threatens the future of the IFB movement? Then the history Baptists in general is indeed a threat, and should be ignored. And, it is ignored. Maybe that's why I didn't know the true history of Baptists till I started learning it from sources outside the IFB movement. Watch out IFB, the Calvinist boogey-man is comin to get ya!"

You asked "Just what is there about Calvinism that threatens the IFB movement" I have tried to reply as best I can.

My Brother please read this in quiet normal conversation overtones. I believe one of the dangers to the IFB is Calvinism which is the direct result of men not being educated in both bible and history. One poster used the words reconstructionism and was asked where he got the term, when in fact reconstructionism was exactly what both Zwingli and Calvin practiced when they turned their respective cities (Zurich and Geneva) into a reconstructed church ruled governments for/over the people. It is a movement that is making its way albeit slowly into Calvinism, Charasmaticism, Para-church organizations are leaning toward this understanding and it is now being considered by some Baptists.

We (IFB) are under attack not aggressively but subtlety through the blurring of our Baptist distinctives. When people say I am a Calvinist Baptist or a Charismatic Baptist they are assigning beliefs to Baptists that are neither true nor historical and certainly not biblical regardless of how often they refer to the bible as their authority.

Calvinism is but one of the blurring trends in the continued efforts of Satan to dissolve the boundaries that prevent ecumenicalism from triumphing. There is more to this battle than merely Calvinism verses our true Baptist heritage. For instance I see the modern versions of the bible as another blurring in that archaic words have a specific meaning verses modern language that is dependent on dynamic equivalency, the interjection of new age terms into the writings of today’s biblical writers and the blurring of gender distinctives creates an animosity toward the bible because it is primarily masculine in its presentation of both God and man. Unfortunately many who hold to the aforementioned practices are not actively planning the overthrow of our Baptist distinctives and heritage. If that were the case it would be clear cut for us to arise and throw off the influence and direction we are leaning toward but the fact is that good men are accepting a change in direction simply because the ideas are wrapped in logical well presented arguments.

When one who is trusted begins to lean in a particular direction through ignorance or gull ability then that one has influenced others whether right or wrong (I go a fishing and they said we go with you). The danger of allowing Calvinist’s to claim they are Baptist is that it lends legitimacy to their name and blurs our distinctives. This cannot be.

Thjplgvp

 

Thank you for everything you said, it is exactly right.:thumbsup:

 

Amen! The integrity of Baptist World Mission is intact. I am honored to be a BWM missionary, and thank God for the board and Dr. and Mrs. Moritz and every one else associated with BWM.

John R. Himes
Asahikawa, Hokkaido, Japan

 

If we stick to the OP, which is about the IFB movement, then it must be stated that never mind the history of other Baptists, the IFB movement has never been Calvinist!! Only in recent years has Calvinism entered the movement.

 

That may be true but that's not the way it was presented. The accusation is that calvinism is a threat to BAPTISTS.

Does John of Japan have any concern for the outright falsehood of this statement: "When people say I am a Calvinist Baptist or a Charismatic Baptist they are assigning beliefs to Baptists that are neither true nor historical and certainly not biblical regardless of how often they refer to the bible as their authority."

 

Read this in conversational tones. A lie is still a lie whether you say it through ignorance or intention.

I can teach every Baptist distinctive and never once mention calvinism or sovereignty or free will. Unfortunately for those IFB that MUST be right or die, the baptist distinctives are:

Bible is the final authority
Autonomy of the Local Church
Priesthood of the Believer
Two ordnances: Baptism and the Lord's Supper
Individual Responsibility
Separation of Church and State
Two offices: Pastor and Deacon

AND ANYTHING ELSE WE (SOL, HAC, SOUTHWIDE, BBF, ETC ETC) SAY BAPTIST SHOULD BELIEVE OR ELSE BE CAST INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE.

Do you wish to continue to characterize calvinists as calvinites? Do you not have the integrety to cease from pretending that you don't know that a baptist calvinist is not a baby-baptizer in secret?

I think the danger you see in calvinism is that you might actually have to admit that God really is sovereign and Finney with his revivalism was an outright heretic.

 

"AND ANYTHING ELSE WE (SOL, HAC, SOUTHWIDE, BBF, ETC ETC) SAY BAPTIST SHOULD BELIEVE OR ELSE BE CAST INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE."

You are doing a good job of stressing my point for me, while I am saying Calvinist's are not Baptist you are attacking me for speaking truth while you are speaking falsehood by suggesting that I am consigning you to the lake of fire. I have never considered Calvinists unsaved and I have never insinuated that you had to believe like me.

Let me say clearly Calvinists are not Baptist's, Charismatics are not Baptist's you can holler and scream till you are blue in the face and that fact will not change.

"Do you wish to continue to characterize Calvinists as calvinites? Do you not have the integrity to cease from pretending that you don't know that a Baptist Calvinist is not a baby-baptizer in secret?"

There is no such creature as a Baptist Calvinist. But when you have church state rule you can put me in jail for that statement. :laugh:

Thjplgvp

 

Hey, don't drag me into your dispute. Personally, I'm peeved that this has turned once again into a C vs. A debate, as if there weren't plenty of those on the BB. I did all of that in the college dorm, and am not really interested in doing it on the BB. (The arguments haven't changed in 30 years.) I'd enjoy getting back to the OP, though.

 

RE: what is there about Calvinism...

“I can teach every Baptist distinctive and never once mention Calvinism or sovereignty or free will. Unfortunately for those IFB that MUST be right or die, the Baptist distinctives are:

Bible is the final authority
Autonomy of the Local Church
Priesthood of the Believer
Two ordnances: Baptism and the Lord's Supper
Individual Responsibility
Separation of Church and State
Two offices: Pastor and Deacon”

You might be able to teach Baptist distinctives without mentioning Calvinism but you would not be true to your own belief system in doing such. If you are such an outstanding Baptist then why do you need to preface Baptist with Calvinism? Once again it was you who asked why I felt Calvinism dangerous to the IFB and I answered your question.

Now here are some questions for you…

When did Baptist’s ever accept limited atonement? [Whosoever Will?]

When did Baptist’s ever believe in the perseverance of the saints in order to prove salvation? [And many walked with him no more]

When did total depravity become a Baptist doctrine? [Who told thee thou wast ]

These are not historic Baptist doctrines they are Augustinian in their origination and reformed in their presentation.

Why would you want to leave your historic roots of Presbyterianism and cling to the Baptist name except to remove the stigma of affusion because you know historically it is not practical in its application?

Also would you also state that Calvinism does not work or dream toward a church run state in which [spiritual] men are given control over government in various sectors of society and that those men would answer to the church leadership directly and not to the people? If you say no then I would ask that you refer to your own history which would demonstrate the opposite of your claims by both Presbyterian and Calvinistic modes of operation.

“Do you wish to continue to characterize Calvinists as calvinites? Do you not have the integrity to cease from pretending that you don't know that a Baptist Calvinist is not a baby-baptizer in secret?”



To answer your statement concerning baby baptizers once again your own history states that Calvin practiced and the Presbyterians practiced infant affusion. Archibald Alexander Hodge whom I believe is one of your church apologists wrote, “At the time of the Reformation learned and holy men were raised up by God in the midst of every European nation. There were perfectly independent movements in each national centre of reform. Zwingle, the Reformer of the Swiss; Luther, the Reformer of the Germans; Calvin, the Reformer of the French, Cranmer, of the English Church, and Knox, of the Scotch, were all independent, and in some things diverse, yet they all agreed spontaneously in the recognition of the church-membership of the infant children of believers. And the great historic churches of the Reformation—the Anglican, the Lutheran, the Reformed or Presbyterian in all its varieties, the original. branch of the Independents, the world-conquering Methodists—all unite with the older churches, Eastern and Western, in maintaining this grand historic constitution of infant church-membership. Those who protest against this ancient and ecumenical consensus, however eminently respectable as we affectionately recognize them to be, are certainly a recent growth, and thus far, as compared with the mighty host, but a small minority.
III. What is the Use of Infant Baptism?
We freely admit that our good Baptist brethren, who refuse to recognize and treat their children as members of the Church of Christ from birth, nevertheless enjoy with us the very benefits which infant baptism asserts and seals. The mistakes of God’s true children will never make him unfaithful to them, nor defeat the blessings he intends for them. Precisely the same is true of the truly Christian Quakers. They enjoy all the blessings signified and sealed by the outward sacraments, although they neglect all of them entirely. Nevertheless, our Baptist brethren being judges, the obedient use of the sacraments is the more excellent way.”
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/HodgeAABaptism.htm
It is interesting that Mr. Hodge never called himself a Baptist.
“I think the danger you see in Calvinism is that you might actually have to admit that God really is sovereign and Finney with his revivalism was an outright heretic.”
Lastly Finney was not a Baptist he was a Congregationalist licensed by the presbytery why would I want to claim him as a Baptist?

 

John is correct - this is not a C v. A debate. I'll give it today to get back on track or be closed.

Roger
C4K
Moderator

 

The future of the Independent Baptist movement? What do we need to address?

I have not had a chance to read all the posts, as I am at work and nearing the end of my lunch break...

However, I would like to chime in with my humble opinion. I have had the opportunity to travel a little for business and pleasure and have seen many different versions of IFB churches.

1) King James. If your church is using anything else, it dropped the fundamental. Revelations is pretty clear on the consequences of adding to, or taking away from, the Bible.

2) Soulwinning (evangelism). It's a command, not a spiritual gift. Those who don't do it are disobedient. A church that doesn't have an organized, church-wide soulwinning church does not care about fulfilling the great commission. By the way, God commands us to tell people. He doesn't command us to "win" people. My job is to warn them, it's the sinner's job to obey and accept God's free gift and Christ's blood payment.

3) Baptising. Last year over 17,000 Baptist churches did not have one baptism. They have become a museum for ancient relics. Eventually, everyone will die out and the doors will close. They should take the Baptist off the sign over the door, too. They are lying to their community and to themselves.

4) Discipleship. The third part of the great commission. In my experience, about 10% of those saved outside the church will show up and get baptized. (Doesn't mean the others weren't saved, BTW.) And about 10% of those baptized will end up serving the Lord. (Attending church, BTW, does not count as serving God). That's 1%. There are books you can use to disciple, but bottom line is you need to teach them about the importance of assurance, baptism, attendance, tithing, standards, etc.

5) Preaching. Good, old fashioned preaching. Not "tiptoeing through the tithers" but actually preaching against sin. All sin. God commands his Pastor to preach the "whole counsel of God"... even if they don't want to.

BTW: If you have never heard of Jonathan Edwards, look him up! He preached his message "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" right up the road from where I sit. He read it word-for-word from his notes in a monotone voice. People were so convicted, he wasn't done when the began running for the alter to beg God to save them.

God's word will not come back void. If we plant the seed, God will give the increase.

6,7,etc.) Too many to list. Standards. Leadership. Music. Consistency.

Scott

 

Scott, your list of the "fundamentals" has nothing to do with where the term came from or how our movement developed. I suggest you find a good book on the history of Fundamentalism and discover your roots. None of the old time Fundamentalists (IFB) that I grew up knowing personally and hearing preach would have agreed with your list: John R. Rice (my grandfather), Lee Roberson, Monroe Parker, even Jack Hyles. (Please oh please, no one turn this into another Hyles thread--shudder.)

In particular, making the use of the KJV a "fundamental" leaves out me and all of the other IFB missionaries in Japan, as well as all of those other countries where missionaries labor in other languages. There is no "KJV-type" Bible in print in Japanese or in most other languages.

 

John,

The KJVo has to have its museum some place . . .

 

Hmmmmmmmmmm.