-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What is an Independent Fundamental Baptist?
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
ChristB4Us
Member
But can he prove that the Baptist church he belongs to is the one that is not affiliated with the Proestant churches as coming out of the Catholic Church?
And even if he could somehow prove it or anyone else can prove it by historical evidence, how can that Baptist church prove that no external doctrine or false teaching has not come into that independent fundamental Baptist church in all that time?
Especially since now, the Baptist church are not all speaking the same thing nor holding to the same judgment?
Not that I wish to point out a factionalism within the independent fundamental Baptist church, even by how the forum has been set up to distinguish between Baptist and other Christians when we are to be identified first and foremost as Christians, but since Alberto Rivera, a former Jesuit, testified to a secret oath to the Jesuit General to sow discord in society to cause society to collapse and to infiltrate the Protestant churches to bring them back into the fold, I fail to see why the independent fundamental Baptist church would not be targeted in all that time down through history.
Those who defend the Trinity doctrine and the worship of the Holy Spirit with the Father & the Son, and even the worship of the Trinity by way of the creeds rather than scripture, does make me wonder that is the evidence the Jesuits infiltrated the church.
We look at the Romans Catholic Church for how they created many "antichrists" which by application and definition means "instead of Christ" rather than "against Christ" like the lie that God gave more grace for believers to do works to earn their salvation by joining the RCC and doing the works of Catholicism within her. That by definition & principle is an antichrist.
Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
And the RCC created many antichrists by how they pray to God by way of the virgin Mary, the departed saints, and even the Holy Spirit and by the broad way, the blessed Trinity in worship as by definition and by principle is an antichrist.
As debates about the Trinity can be found by the extrabiblical sources that cited 1 John 5:7 regarding the 3 Witnesses in Heaven as originally scripture as far back as 200 A.D., the question is not about whether or not each Person of the Trinity is God but the question should be asked is, is there equal authority within the Triune God?
John 14:Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
It is because of verses like these two is why believers are led astray into not believing in the Trinity doctrine and the deity of Jesus Christ even though they do so at the expense of scripture.
This is how the Three Witnesses within the One God exists as the One God is because the will of the Father is to be done.
We see this in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus prayed 3 times to have the cup removed from Him but nevertheless He prayed that the Father's will be done and not His own.
So the misapplication of the Trinity doctrine has deceived the Baptist churches by way of those creeds to worship the Trinity and even the Holy Spirit with the Father & the Son as "instead of Christ". Since that practice and doctrine exists in the RCC, one should be dubious about how this got into the independent, fundamental Baptist churches at some point in their history.
Because Jesus said explicitly how we are to come to God the Father by and how we are supposed to honor the Father by and even went further by saying when we are not honoring the Son, then we are not honoring the Father which is His Father's will.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 10:1Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
Somehow the long held unbiblical practice has made null and void the Word of God and the will of the Father as Baptist churches are climbing up another way to God the Father "instead of Christ" and honoring God the Father "instead of Christ".
If we expect to correct other denominational churches of their false teachings by the scriptures, the intendent fundamental Baptist church should start another reformation and lead by example in regards to how they come to the Father & honor Him in worship.by obeying the word of God and thus the will of the Father by coming to Him by way of the son in only honoring the Son in worship if they wish to honor & glorify God the Father by since that is the mind of Christ we are to have in worship..
Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only......
If the independent fundamental Baptist church was on guard against external influence & infiltration of undercover Jesuits down through history, then they would be keeping that singular mind of Christ in worship which is according to the Father's will..... but that is not what I am seeing.
May God cause the increase & wake up some Baptist churches and mayhap even other churches to do a reformation.
37818
Well-Known Member
Two facts. The name "Baptist" is a post Protestant sect name. And more importantly, the New Testament documents are the sole Apostolic authority handed down from the first century we have of authentic Christianity. For which whether regarded as Protestant or not is the sole final authority for the genuine Christian faith and practice.
37818
Well-Known Member
ChristB4Us
Member
Someone claimed that there is line of Baptists churches that did not come out of the Catholic Church as one being one of the many Protestant churches.
Since we know now that there are some Baptist churches coming out of the Proestant churches, one should discern with the Lord Jesus Christ whether that water baptism by immersion only is not some derivative of the RCC emphasis on water baptism as that "sacrament" as one of the many sacraments necessary for Catholics to do works to gain that grace of salvation through the RCC, which is a bunch of baloney, but maybe we should discern why some Baptists are emphasizing that so much.
Personal take on "IFB"
During Vietnam, I was endorsed as a Naval Chaplain. At that time the category was Protestant. I believe now they have Baptist as a classification. I accepted that label. (I did not get the opportunity to serve, sadly, as the weekend I went to Detroit Naval Yard for all of the enlistment procedures in September 1972, President Nixon signed an order to STOP all commissions as part of his troop "phase down" in Vietnam to help his reelection. We were given a small remuneration and our entire group - mostly medical or lawyer or other professional enlistees; I was the only chaplain candidate - were released)
Our heritage as English Baptists were part of the SECOND reformation. This came as many realized the Reformation churches (think Lutheran, Presbyterian and slightly later Anglican) did not complete the job. In that era (no longer the 1500's, but the 1600-1700's) Baptist churches emerged - often called Anabaptists out of ignorance of the Protestant State Churches - and that is our heritage. Other nations, esp Germany and Sweden, also saw the same separation into Baptist from their State churches in that era.
English Baptists in America coalesced into regional associations and had their own "Confession" (detailed doctrinal statement) in the Colonies and early nation. After the Revolution, these associations worked together in tri-annual conventions to support missionaries and schools. Of course, some missionaries held slaves (legal in every state at the beginning) and as abolition of slavery grew there was a divide in 1845.
Liberalism developed, especially in leadership in the Northern Baptists but also within the more conservative Southern Baptists, too. In the wake of this, great conferences were held to promote the "fundamentals of the faith" at oppose modernism, liberalism, and godless evolution that was becoming the norm in all denominations. Baptist churches usually stayed within the overall conventions and missions, but sought to STOP the leftward theological drift. In 1920 the Northern Baptist "fundamental" pastors/delegates met before annual meeting in a Fundamental Baptist Fellowship on plans to save the movement.
They lost; 3 years later the SBC faced the same battle but won. But Fundamental Baptist were not done. Many (more in the North than the South) LEFT the Convention and became "Independent". Even when they gathered with likeminded churches, they opted to form loose "Associations" (not heavy-handed Convention control) for missionaries or schools. General Association of Regular Baptists in the 1930's (not confused with General Baptists, formerly Swedish Baptist Convention), Conservative Baptist Association, etc. But all churches were INDEPENDENT FUNDAMENTAL BAPTISTS, regardless of loose association.
Sad caveat: because there is only loose fellowship, the individual churches or pastors have WIDE latitude in how their ORTHODOX fundamental views impact their ORTHOPRAXY or conduct/methods. Many "IFB" churches would not agree, support or even cooperate with others also labeled "IFB". So, a church with a pastor-dictator, Arminian, KJVonly, etc, is still just as valid in using "IFB" as I was with an elder-led, Calvinistic, original Greek, reformed "IFB".
During Vietnam, I was endorsed as a Naval Chaplain. At that time the category was Protestant. I believe now they have Baptist as a classification. I accepted that label. (I did not get the opportunity to serve, sadly, as the weekend I went to Detroit Naval Yard for all of the enlistment procedures in September 1972, President Nixon signed an order to STOP all commissions as part of his troop "phase down" in Vietnam to help his reelection. We were given a small remuneration and our entire group - mostly medical or lawyer or other professional enlistees; I was the only chaplain candidate - were released)
Our heritage as English Baptists were part of the SECOND reformation. This came as many realized the Reformation churches (think Lutheran, Presbyterian and slightly later Anglican) did not complete the job. In that era (no longer the 1500's, but the 1600-1700's) Baptist churches emerged - often called Anabaptists out of ignorance of the Protestant State Churches - and that is our heritage. Other nations, esp Germany and Sweden, also saw the same separation into Baptist from their State churches in that era.
English Baptists in America coalesced into regional associations and had their own "Confession" (detailed doctrinal statement) in the Colonies and early nation. After the Revolution, these associations worked together in tri-annual conventions to support missionaries and schools. Of course, some missionaries held slaves (legal in every state at the beginning) and as abolition of slavery grew there was a divide in 1845.
Liberalism developed, especially in leadership in the Northern Baptists but also within the more conservative Southern Baptists, too. In the wake of this, great conferences were held to promote the "fundamentals of the faith" at oppose modernism, liberalism, and godless evolution that was becoming the norm in all denominations. Baptist churches usually stayed within the overall conventions and missions, but sought to STOP the leftward theological drift. In 1920 the Northern Baptist "fundamental" pastors/delegates met before annual meeting in a Fundamental Baptist Fellowship on plans to save the movement.
They lost; 3 years later the SBC faced the same battle but won. But Fundamental Baptist were not done. Many (more in the North than the South) LEFT the Convention and became "Independent". Even when they gathered with likeminded churches, they opted to form loose "Associations" (not heavy-handed Convention control) for missionaries or schools. General Association of Regular Baptists in the 1930's (not confused with General Baptists, formerly Swedish Baptist Convention), Conservative Baptist Association, etc. But all churches were INDEPENDENT FUNDAMENTAL BAPTISTS, regardless of loose association.
Sad caveat: because there is only loose fellowship, the individual churches or pastors have WIDE latitude in how their ORTHODOX fundamental views impact their ORTHOPRAXY or conduct/methods. Many "IFB" churches would not agree, support or even cooperate with others also labeled "IFB". So, a church with a pastor-dictator, Arminian, KJVonly, etc, is still just as valid in using "IFB" as I was with an elder-led, Calvinistic, original Greek, reformed "IFB".
37818
Well-Known Member
.
Churches which originate from the New Testament are not out of the RCC. There are no sacraments. The common Baptist districtive being believer's water immersion. And the local church members are all being saved water baptized members.
Isn't there are more that make a "Baptist" Church than just water immersion/regenerate memberships?
ChristB4Us
Member
I heard of the ones claiming to be not of the RCC in coming out of, as claiming to be Baptist but where is the historical source of that Baptist church to testify of that validation that water baptism can only be done by immersion of done at all?
There is no source that I know of, and regardless, the Word of God has to be that source if that Baptist church held to the original ordinances of the early N.T. churches that had existed outside of the RCC and there is no such emphasis when water baptism is not necessary for salvation.
Paul was making it an ordinance for men to have their heads uncovered when they preach or pray while the women in outward ministry were to have their heads covered when preaching and when praying too. Is that still being practiced in the Baptist churches?
Paul even exhorted greeting one another with a kiss. Is that still being practiced within the Baptist churches?
I am beginning to think this Baptist church that supposed to exist outside the RCC as maintaining the ordinances of the early churches is a facade, an idle boast meant to solicit believers disillusioned with their Protestant churches or even the RCC.
Especially since everybody in this Baptist forum do not seem to be hearing the word of God at all when it comes to how we are supposed to come to God the Father by or only honor the Father by and that is His Son as led by the Spirit of God in us to do.
I think the Lord is leading me not to be identified as a Baptist then, but a follower of Jesus Christ by His grace & by His help.
ChristB4Us
Member
I have decided to change my Baptist identification to Christian and no longer post in Baptist's Only part of this forum.
Thank you for allowing me to post as a Baptist even though I was kind of hoping to affiliate with the church that existed outside the RCC down through history as stemming from the early churches of the N.T. but I am convinced that early church is gone.
Appreciate your honesty in this matter. Blessings - discussion in the non-Baptist section is wide open BUT it obviously not the same depth or intensity
37818
Well-Known Member
Of course. But it has since the post reformation adoption of the Baptist label been a primary characteristic, has it not?
37818
Well-Known Member
Believers' baptism after regeneration by immersion is the most obvious doctrinal area visible to the world. But a LOT more than that to be a "Baptist".
Bible as sole authority for faith and practice is the foundation. No pope, synod, bishops, State, et al, telling a Baptist church what they must believe or how they must live has to be #1.
Bible teaches regenerated church membership
Bible teaches autonomy of the local church
Bible teaches priesthood of the believers
Bible teaches soul liberty
Bible teaches immersion and Lord's Supper as ordinances, not sacraments
Bible teaches separation - Separation of church/state, Separation ethically in living, Separation ecclesiastically from false religions
With the Bible as the ONLY authority, the rest crumble. Might as well be a Catholic or a Hindu
You jumped from Independent Fundamental Baptists to Catholicism to the anti-Christ to the Trinity and equal authority within the Godhead back to the Independent Fundamental Baptists. I'm not sure at all what you're trying to discuss in that post.
Baptists (that I know) aren't interested in "reformation" but instead are interested in being born again of the Word and the Spirit. Salvation--not reformation--when the old man is reformed, he's still the old man. We need to be a new man in Christ.
I don't have a problem with Independent Fundamental Baptist churches in general. Some are a bit strange, but most seem quite normal to me.
Men pray with their heads uncovered. A woman prays with her head covered--her hair is given to her for a covering. And Paul didn't say to greet one another with a kiss, but he said with "a holy kiss".
I saw a Christian woman demonstrate that "holy kiss" once. She held her big Bible in front of her face against the teen's face that was asking the question and kissed her Bible. She said, "That's a holy kiss."
I could not disagree with her wisdom!
