Where is the IFB Sytematic Theology?

[Luke2427]

Do IFB's HAVE a systematic theology?

Or do they lean on Protestant works?

I am certain that in their "seminaries" they teach terms like hypostasis, infralapsarianism, etc...

But how do those that believe they go all the way back to John the Baptist (or wherever they think they start) having never been a part of the "catholic" or Protestant churches- how do they justify utilizing our terms and our doctrines that we hammered out?

Since Athanasius was "catholic" how do they justify calling themselves TRINITarian?

Do they get to use our term "Trinity"? Why?

Do they get to believe in hypostasis since WE worked that out and they are not part of US?

Shouldn't they have their OWN theologians in history who worked these things out rather than leaning almost fully on OURS?

By US and WE and OURS I am referring to the Historic Christian Faith as traced back through history down through the Creeds and to the Apostles.

They claim (not all of them, I know) that they were never part of US.

They have a steady line of mysterious, historically invisible BAPTISTS- but they use our stuff and depend almost FULLY upon our blood, sweat and tears to give them their doctrines (the Trinity for example).

We've yet to get good answers from these IFB folks who believe the unbroken line business to these original questions.

 

[InTheLight]

We've yet to get good answers from these IFB folks who believe the unbroken line business to these original questions.

Why is this important to you?

Who is being harmed by this?

 

[InTheLight]

Episcopalians are ordaining gays. That's terrible. But many episcopians within that movement are against that. I don't have to condemn their thinking since their thinking is fine.

Some IFB's are KJVO. That's terrible. But many IFB's within that movement are against it. I don't have to condemn their thinking since their thinking is fine.

What you seem to fail to understand is that a person can be in a bad movement or one gone bad and still have the right thinking.

Unless they go to an IFB church. Then they are to be condemned!

 

[glfredrick]

Why is this important to you?

Who is being harmed by this?

It is a matter of integrity. They are promulgating a version of history that is equally as revised as RCC or Mormons. Why attract members by disingenuous means?

 

[Luke2427]

Some IFB's are KJVO. That's terrible. But many IFB's within that movement are against it. I don't have to condemn their thinking since their thinking is fine.

My point exactly.

You can condemn the thinking of many in your movement and you SHOULD without condemning everyone in the movement.

My point exactly.



I have... wait for it... from the OP... that NOT ALL IFB'S THINK THIS WAY.

I have said that from the very start.

I am condemning a philosophy- not people.

And I have recognized FROM THE START that not all IFB's have this philosophy.

 

[InTheLight]

It is a matter of integrity. They are promulgating a version of history that is equally as revised as RCC or Mormons. Why attract members by disingenuous means?

While I readily admit my knowledge of the (alleged) claim that IFBers trace their lineage back to the Apostles was non-existent until I heard about it on this board, I can say with certainty after attending various IFB churches, various non-denom churches, various flavors of Baptist churches for the past 40 years that NONE of them puffed up their history in an attempt to attract members. I've never heard of it. Nor would I consider it an effective strategy for winning people's hearts and minds.

Move along people, there is nothing to see here...

 

[matt wade]

My point exactly.

You can condemn the thinking of many in your movement and you SHOULD without condemning everyone in the movement.

My point exactly.



I have... wait for it... from the OP... that NOT ALL IFB'S THINK THIS WAY.

I have said that from the very start.

I am condemning a philosophy- not people.

And I have recognized FROM THE START that not all IFB's have this philosophy.

And here's the counterpoint Rick....wait for it....here it comes.

There are churches in the SBC that have terrible doctrine. Where are your threads ousting them?

There are churches in the SBC that are Landmarkers (yes, that's what you are talking about here) Rick. Where are your threads ousting them? Landmarkers are not isolated to IFB churches.

 

[FundyPat]

what do you care? You're not even IFB!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

While I readily admit my knowledge of the (alleged) claim that IFBers trace their lineage back to the Apostles was non-existent until I heard about it on this board, I can say with certainty after attending various IFB churches, various non-denom churches, various flavors of Baptist churches for the past 40 years that NONE of them puffed up their history in an attempt to attract members. I've never heard of it. Nor would I consider it an effective strategy for winning people's hearts and minds.

Move along people, there is nothing to see here...

I agree, this is not part of what I have experienced.

 

[Luke2427]

And here's the counterpoint Rick....wait for it....here it comes.

There are churches in the SBC that have terrible doctrine. Where are your threads ousting them?

There are churches in the SBC that are Landmarkers (yes, that's what you are talking about here) Rick. Where are your threads ousting them? Landmarkers are not isolated to IFB churches.

I just had a thread in the general thread criticizing the proportionate lack evangelistic zeal in the SBC.

 

[matt wade]

I just had a thread in the general thread criticizing the proportionate lack evangelistic zeal in the SBC.

Where is the thread criticizing them for being Landmarkers? It appears that you have an unhealthly obsession with IFB churches. If you were truly fair and honest you would show the same zeal with calling out the SBC for harboring Landmarkers. Why don't you?

 

[glfredrick]

And here's the counterpoint Rick....wait for it....here it comes.

There are churches in the SBC that have terrible doctrine. Where are your threads ousting them?

There are churches in the SBC that are Landmarkers (yes, that's what you are talking about here) Rick. Where are your threads ousting them? Landmarkers are not isolated to IFB churches.

Indeed, certain SBC members pioneered the concept of Landmarkism.

Since, most, but not all, have disavowed the concept as not historically accurate. Nice story and all, but not viable and not truthful.

Weird how one book at precisely the right time -- and none of it particularly scriptural -- can influence an entire generation to hold as absolute some doctrine that is not even on the radar as far as God is concerned.

In our era we've seen The Prayer of Jabez, The Shack, and now, Radical all do likewise.

 

[Luke2427]

Where is the thread criticizing them for being Landmarkers? It appears that you have an unhealthly obsession with IFB churches. If you were truly fair and honest you would show the same zeal with calling out the SBC for harboring Landmarkers. Why don't you?

I don't know of any SBC folks on bb who believe this unbroken line separate from the catholic church all the way back to the apostles business.


Several of you guys ADMIT you believe it.

So why should I criticize SBC folks on here who don't beleive it.

Furthermore, SBC says on their WEB PAGE that they are the largest PROTESTANT denomination in America.

That kind of means the SBC by and large has sense enough to know they CAME OUT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

 

[Luke2427]

Do IFB's HAVE a systematic theology?

Or do they lean on Protestant works?

I am certain that in their "seminaries" they teach terms like hypostasis, infralapsarianism, etc...

But how do those that believe they go all the way back to John the Baptist (or wherever they think they start) having never been a part of the "catholic" or Protestant churches- how do they justify utilizing our terms and our doctrines that we hammered out?

Since Athanasius was "catholic" how do they justify calling themselves TRINITarian?

Do they get to use our term "Trinity"? Why?

Do they get to believe in hypostasis since WE worked that out and they are not part of US?

Shouldn't they have their OWN theologians in history who worked these things out rather than leaning almost fully on OURS?

By US and WE and OURS I am referring to the Historic Christian Faith as traced back through history down through the Creeds and to the Apostles.

They claim (not all of them, I know) that they were never part of US.

They have a steady line of mysterious, historically invisible BAPTISTS- but they use our stuff and depend almost FULLY upon our blood, sweat and tears to give them their doctrines (the Trinity for example).

I think it is clear by this point that they have no answers to these questions.

Every effort at deflection that could be imagined has been employed.

From calling me all kinds of hateful names to retreating to, "Well SBC believe this too!"

But no answers.


It is clear that IFB, OR ANYBODY, who holds to this "We didn't come from no stinking catholic church!" mentality while at the same time holding to Historic Orthodoxy cannot justify the terrible inconsistency of the two.

You simply don't get to rely FULLY upon the Catholic and Protestant movements for your orthodoxy and claim not to have EVER been a part of them.


This position is insulting to all Protestants. It insinuates that Protestants are lesser in some way. I have often heard these types say, "We didn't come from no WHORE! (speaking of the catholic church)"

Gee, thanks. But you came from the same place we did, you just lack the education to know it.

But worse, this doctrine, like many that MANY IFB people cling to, is TERRIBLY divisive.

I think it is not NECESSARILY heresy- but it is a cancer that needs to be cut out of our religious culture.



But let me conclude with this (unless someone else wants to continue).



The main problem I have with this thinking is what I think is at the root of it.

Ignorance, arrogance and irreverence.

It is an ignorance of the facts.

It is an arrogance that preaches these things without concern for the facts.

It is an irreverence for the Gospel and the Kingdom- a lack of the fear of God driving men to haphazardly hurl their unstudied ideas into the market place of ideals when they could, and often do, hinder the Kingdom, dim God's glory in our culture and endanger the eternal souls of men.

Does this pseudo-history of baptists do all of that? MAYBE not.

But the ignorance, arrogance and irreverence that enables people to believe it and preach it- it is the same that enables people to believe and preach every damnable heresy that has ever existed.


This pseudo-history business is a branch of the poisonous tree.

As is KJVO.

As is pastoral dictatorship.

As is legalism and phariseism.

As is Mormonism.

As is David Koresh, etc...


The ROOT is the same for all these branches:

IGNORANCE

ARROGANCE

IRREVERENCE

 

[Luke2427]

Why is this important to you?

Who is being harmed by this?

I answer this in the post above.

 

[seekingthetruth]

I am going to attempt to convey this one more time.

Man does not need historical Bible scholars, creeds councils or the RCC to understand Bible doctrine. I happen to believe that Baptists are the closest there is to true and correct Bible doctrine...that is why I am one.

But, if we dropped a case of Bibles on an isolated island that has never heard of Christianity, I believe they could absorb the Word and practice the exact same doctrine as us Baptists as the Word of God teaches on their own. They would not need the RCC's help in any way.

My point being, whatever doctrines we share with any other group of Christians is a direct result of biblical learning, and NOT the "historic church" history. Nobody has to "steal" Bible doctrine. Just pick up your Bible and start studying. And if two of us come up with the same doctrine then it is because the Bible taught it to us, and not because we "stole" it.

Bible doctrine is taught by the Bible, not ancient RCC scholars.

This is why nobody has answered Rick's OP, because it is a ridiculous question. It assumes that all doctrine had to come from some ancient Bible scholar and not from personal study and guidance from the HS.

That is just wrong.

John

 

[glfredrick]

I think it is clear by this point that they have no answers to these questions.

Every effort at deflection that could be imagined has been employed.

From calling me all kinds of hateful names to retreating to, "Well SBC believe this too!"

But no answers.


It is clear that IFB, OR ANYBODY, who holds to this "We didn't come from no stinking catholic church!" mentality while at the same time holding to Historic Orthodoxy cannot justify the terrible inconsistency of the two.

You simply don't get to rely FULLY upon the Catholic and Protestant movements for your orthodoxy and claim not to have EVER been a part of them.


This position is insulting to all Protestants. It insinuates that Protestants are lesser in some way. I have often heard these types say, "We didn't come from no WHORE! (speaking of the catholic church)"

Let me be the first to mention that we are ALL indirectly related to at least one "whore" because our LIFE has a "whore" in his genealogy. Those who toss this invective around are generally the same ones who praise God like the "rich man" in Jesus example, continually thinking (and expressing!) "Thank God we are not like them..." Otherwise called "proud" in Scripture.

 

[InTheLight]

I answer this in the post above.

OK, thanks for the answer. You maintain that Protestants are harmed by the claim by a minority of IFB's that their lineage goes all the way back to the apostles. That somehow it lessens them. Frankly, I don't see the harm. It's about as devastating to me as the fact that elephants can't play the piano.

It is kind of a strawman argument as well.

It also gives you the opportunity to cast aspersions on IFB's.

Oh well...

 

[Luke2427]

OK, thanks for the answer. You maintain that Protestants are harmed by the claim by a minority of IFB's that their lineage goes all the way back to the apostles. That somehow it lessens them. Frankly, I don't see the harm. It's about as devastating to me as the fact that elephants can't play the piano.

It is kind of a strawman argument as well.

It also gives you the opportunity to cast aspersions on IFB's.

Oh well...

I personally do not think it is a minority of IFB people.

I think most IFB people do not think of themselves as Protestants.

I think MOST IFB people deny that they came out of the catholic church.

And I think the infighting this ideology, paired with numerous other IFB ideologies, causes absolutely hinders Kingdom progress.

In my area the Missionary Baptists are strong. Many of them believe this junk. And it is divisive here.

So my options are- let the infection fester or drain it out.

Draining it is painful. Aggressive treatment always is. But it is better than ignoring it in the long haul.

 

[Luke2427]

I am going to attempt to convey this one more time.

Man does not need historical Bible scholars, creeds councils or the RCC to understand Bible doctrine.

This is a TERRIBLY unfortunate way of thinking.

I happen to believe that Baptists are the closest there is to true and correct Bible doctrine...that is why I am one.

And they got most of it from Catholics and Protestants.

But, if we dropped a case of Bibles on an isolated island that has never heard of Christianity, I believe they could absorb the Word and practice the exact same doctrine as us Baptists as the Word of God teaches on their own. They would not need the RCC's help in any way.

These people would go through the same struggles the true Church has already gone through.

They would work these things out over hundreds of years of time.

These people would not be smarter or more spiritual than the Church that was and is.

They would debate and discuss and divide and experience growing pains and make mistakes on their path to orthodoxy just like the Church has done.

My point being, whatever doctrines we share with any other group of Christians is a direct result of biblical learning, and NOT the "historic church" history.

Biblical learning is what the historic church has done.

You seem to think that there is the Bible as a source of authority on one side and history as a source on the other. Not so.

The Historical Church holds the BIBLE as the ONLY source of authority.

What the historical church has done is try to understand the bible.

Some of it is very easy to understand. Repent and believe and be saved.

Some of it is EXTREMELY complex- The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God- these three are One God consisting in three distinct persons. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The Spirit proceeds eternally from the godhead.

These are things that it has taken the Body of Christ hundreds of years to work out.

They ARE TEACHING THE BIBLE.

And you need their HELP.

You need their help.

You need their help.

You need their help.

You are not so smart and so spiritual that you can work out on your own what it took the whole Body of Christ hundreds of years to work out.

You need their help.

You need their help.

You need their help.

To fail to recognize this is to indicate the existence of a severe problem of ignorance, arrogance and irreverence in you.

It is not arrogance to say, "What has the Body of Christ historically believed about this passage?"

It is arrogance NOT TO.

It is arrogance NOT TO.

It is arrogance NOT TO.

It is arrogance NOT TO.

It is arrogance NOT TO.

I cannot say it any more clearly or emphatically.

Many people have arrogance and humility mixed up.

Many people think arrogance is humility and think humility is arrogance.

The world is mixed up here and so is our religious culture.