Where is the IFB Sytematic Theology?

[glfredrick]

First of all, the argument made by you and Luke that IFB should have it's own theology is silly. We hold to the teachings of the New Testament church. All denominations hold to the same thing to one degree or another. IFB doesn't claim to have any special doctrine that it came up with. As a matter of fact, the IFB church I go to is identical in doctrine and beliefs as the SBC church I grew up in 40 years ago. What does set us apart from SBC now is that we still hold to conservative views.

Which, by the way, is PRECISELY what both Luke2427 and I have been saying. Your interpretation of "conservative views" may be a topic of another discussion, but is not pertinent to this particular thread. Yet, the IFB (indepdendently...) claims that they did not stem from any existing apostate denomination or sect. Sounds sort of peculiar to me, for how can one hold to the teachings of the New Testament church if that church also happens to have as members Catholicism, Orthodox, and all sorts of other denominations and sects to which you disavow yourselves throughout history -- even before you existed as an organization?

As far as independent? You obviously don't know what the term means as it is applied to IFB.

Actually, I am certain that I do understand what the term means as applied to the IFB. Yet, for all ths autonomy, you are all strangely joined at the hip with your own schools, your own authors (none of whom have particularly contributed to the grand theological scheme), and your own printing houses, etc. All sounds rather SBC on the face of things... :laugh:

"The word "Independent" means the church is not a member of any council, convention or is a part of any hierarchy outside the local congregation. A true Independent Baptist church governs itself apart from any outside agency and would not be apart of a national or international denomination that would exercise authority over the local church. Thus, the name "independent" means the church patterns itself after the New Testament example and stands alone under the authority of the scriptures. Independent churches are autonomous assemblies having no organization over them in authority. Free from outside interference, they direct their own affairs under the authority of the New Testament Scriptures. "

So too is the SBC. So what? Each church is autonomous and cooperates with other congregations who are like minded for the greater good of the kingdom work.

It is what is accomplished in the "Independence" that sets one apart from the other.

It's about being autonomous in church government, not independent in doctrine.

Yup -- a tenet that I hold to most dearly! There are some in the SBC that might think that they can exude pressure on the churches from on high. They cannot and they know it, but that is a trait common to humanity. Same goes in the IFB movement. Just try to disavow John Rice and see how far you get!

You and Luke have this vendetta against IFB and have come up with this goofy argument that IFB should have it's own set of doctrines created by itself. It took the line of Christians all the way back to the Apostles to bring us to where we are today. And it took scholars from all different denominations to piece together the doctrine we have today.

No, actually, you have that QUITE wrong. I have no vendetta at all against the IFB, for in spirit, I are one. What I have problems with is your statement above, "It took the line of Christians all the way back to the Apostles to bring us to where we are today. "

While that is true, it is not true in the manner that you (IFB) use it. There are NO direct traceable links between all the splinter groups that set themselves against the Roman church and more, many, if not most, are heretical. Claiming a joint history when such has not existed save by careful reconstruction of history -- examining just this small tenet or that small practice in isolation from what really happened with the group -- and setting the group apart from the Reformation -- are both disingenuous and not in keeping with a body of believers that say they are following THE TRUTH in spirit and truth. Such is the work of cults -- and no, I am not calling the IFB a cult -- just noting the similarities in the way historical revisionism is used in both groups to craft something that is not precisely that way.

Additionally, I have a lot of issues with the way "eccesiological separation" is applied in the IFB case. I can and have offered up multiple IFB websites where "everyone" (except a very select class of IFB personalities) are "hated". Such is not the work of God, for God seeks reconciliation not separation. You cannot argue against Jesus' high priestly prayer where He prayed in His last days that we would be ONE as He and the Father are ONE.

The fact that on this thread Luke has called IFB a cult, bastards, and thieves, and the fact that you don't know what independent means, tells me that this whole thread is really about your hatred for IFB, not about church history.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Which, by the way, is PRECISELY what both Luke2427 and I have been saying. Your interpretation of "conservative views" may be a topic of another discussion, but is not pertinent to this particular thread. Yet, the IFB (indepdendently...) claims that they did not stem from any existing apostate denomination or sect. Sounds sort of peculiar to me, for how can one hold to the teachings of the New Testament church if that church also happens to have as members Catholicism, Orthodox, and all sorts of other denominations and sects to which you disavow yourselves throughout history -- even before you existed as an organization? .

I have never heard any IFB claim that we did not evolve from other denominations. I, myself, was raised in an SBC church. My Bible college degree is from an SBC school.

The argument about our roots going all the way back to the Apostles is not an IFB only argument. We believe that ALL baptists are included in this. It is the "Baptist doctrine" that we suggest was carried on throughout history, not IFB solely. We don't believe the church dissappeared for 1200 years during the reign of the RCC.

IFB as we know it did not exist until modern history, but the doctrine behind IFB has been in exixtence since Pentecost. The doctrine behind ALL Baptists has been in existence since Pentecost. God preserved the church, it never died.

John

 

[glfredrick]

I have never heard any IFB claim that we did not evolve from other denominations. I, myself, was raised in an SBC church. My Bible college degree is from an SBC school.

The argument about our roots going all the way back to the Apostles is not an IFB only argument. We believe that ALL baptists are included in this. It is the "Baptist doctrine" that we suggest was carried on throughout history, not IFB solely. We don't believe the church dissappeared for 1200 years during the reign of the RCC.

IFB as we know it did not exist until modern history, but the doctrine behind IFB has been in exixtence since Pentecost. The doctrine behind ALL Baptists has been in existence since Pentecost. God preserved the church, it never died.

John

On that we agree...

But I still would argue that the IFB, overall, does not see their history the way you just outlined.

 

[Luke2427]

I have never heard any IFB claim that we did not evolve from other denominations. I, myself, was raised in an SBC church. My Bible college degree is from an SBC school.

The argument about our roots going all the way back to the Apostles is not an IFB only argument. We believe that ALL baptists are included in this. It is the "Baptist doctrine" that we suggest was carried on throughout history, not IFB solely. We don't believe the church dissappeared for 1200 years during the reign of the RCC.

IFB as we know it did not exist until modern history, but the doctrine behind IFB has been in exixtence since Pentecost. The doctrine behind ALL Baptists has been in existence since Pentecost. God preserved the church, it never died.

John

You can't have it both ways.

You can't have this mythical line of baptists that are totally separate from the catholic church and protestantism- that existed outside of the catholic church baptizing only believers ALL THE WAY BACK to the Apostles in an unbroken line....

You can't have that AND the Trinity and every other theological belief that Catholics and Protestants gave you.

You do know that the Trinity is a catholic doctrine, right?

 

[seekingthetruth]

You can't have it both ways.

You can't have this mythical line of baptists that are totally separate from the catholic church and protestantism- that existed outside of the catholic church baptizing only believers ALL THE WAY BACK to the Apostles in an unbroken line....

You can't have that AND the Trinity and every other theological belief that Catholics and Protestants gave you.

You do know that the Trinity is a catholic doctrine, right?

Uh NO, actually the New Testament gave us the doctrine of the Trinity, and all of the other doctrines we hold to.

Anybody studying the New Testament can see the doctrines we hold to, we don't have to have some great Bible scholar from 1500 years ago to spell it out.

We can read, and the HS still to this day gives understanding.

John

 

[DHK]

You do know that the Trinity is a catholic doctrine, right?

No, the Catholic Church gave us precious little but blood and martyrs.

 

[Luke2427]

No, the Catholic Church gave us precious little but blood and martyrs.

I bet you can't get john of Japan or any other educated IFB to agree with this remark.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes. I am familiar with them.

Your claim is that I am not.

But that's all you did.
You didn't make a point from the existence of these historical groups.
You didn't even attempt to establish that the existence of these historical groups contradicts anything I have been arguing.

You just said that apparently luke isn't familiar with them- which is incorrect.

You didn't try to substantiate the claim that I am unfamiliar with them.

You just said it. That's it.

That's not an argument.

You're provoked with me. Good. "And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works." (Heb 10:24).

I made an observation (not an accusation) based on what I've seen of you on the BB and in particular on this thread. My observation is that you're not very up on early church history (on which is based partially the Landmarkian claims). So far you've not disabused me. I didn't ask whether you were familiar with them, I asked if you had read them. You don't answer my comment about whether or not you've taken any church history. You don't answer my question about what specifically of Euesebias and the Apostolic Fathers you've read. You simply protest.

So, have you actually read Eusebius specifically? Read the Apostolic Fathers? Have you had an undergrad course in church history? Grad?

 

[John of Japan]

No, the Catholic Church gave us precious little but blood and martyrs.

I bet you can't get john of Japan or any other educated IFB to agree with this remark.

Actually I do agree with DHK on this. The Catholic religion did not even start until 313, and even then it did not exist in its present form (Mariolatry, the authority of church tradition, etc.) By 313 virtually all major doctrines were decided. So the Catholics did not give us the major doctrines, only a false Gospel and various other false doctrines which the Reformers had to distance themselves from and reject.

Oh, yes, they did give us Vaticanus--shucks!

 

[robt.k.fall]

And I agree with John and DHK.

Actually I do agree with DHK on this. The Catholic religion did not even start until 313, and even then it did not exist in its present form (Mariolatry, the authority of church tradition, etc.) By 313 virtually all major doctrines were decided. So the Catholics did not give us the major doctrines, only a false Gospel and various other false doctrines which the Reformers had to distance themselves from and reject.

Oh, yes, they did give us Vaticanus--shucks!

No, the Catholic Church gave us precious little but blood and martyrs.

I bet you can't get john of Japan or any other educated IFB to agree with this remark.

 

[John of Japan]

John, here's a weird question. You and I are martial artists. 1,000 years from know, where will the authentic Jeet Kune Do be? From those who can quote "The Tao of Jeet Kune Do" and practice its concepts and training regimen? Or will it be people who can trace their lineage of instructors back to Bruce Lee ( I come from the Taky Kimura lineage! Oh yeah? Well I come from the Dan Inosanto lineage!).

Can such a discussion shed light on the present discussion or not? Just thought I'd throw that out there. Luke, don't mess with John of Japan--he knows Wing Chun kung fu; he knows 400 ways to slap your arms.

Your turn, John! :tongue3:

Kimura lineage is orthodox. Inosanto is Reformation heresy! :tongue3:

 

[John of Japan]

I'm poking John of Japan in the ribs a little. I'd rather tell Mom I married another man than tell her I learned wing chun kung fu. :laugh:

So..... how are we to view church history? How important is it? Or are we better off learning something else?

Let's get together in the Sports Forum--quietly--and do some virtual sticky hands.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[glfredrick]

Actually I do agree with DHK on this. The Catholic religion did not even start until 313, and even then it did not exist in its present form (Mariolatry, the authority of church tradition, etc.) By 313 virtually all major doctrines were decided. So the Catholics did not give us the major doctrines, only a false Gospel and various other false doctrines which the Reformers had to distance themselves from and reject.

Oh, yes, they did give us Vaticanus--shucks!

On a very technical sense, you are correct. But that first church was also "catholic" and one was/is the same as the other for all practical purposes. It was not as if someone flipped a light switch at 313 AD and turned everything on/off, or was it? Perhaps I should not impugn your view until I let you hang it out there for all to see?

And, just to deflect what I know comes next... No, I do not think what happened in the Roman Catholic Church down through history is of God nor is it particularly biblical. That whole issue is rather well documented and the heresies, abuses, and anthropologically-centered power graps well known by virtually all people who take an interest in church doctrine and history. But we cannot so simply or easily just disavow ourselves for the Catholic church just because we don't really care for what they did in history. They were the Church for all practical purposes, even though the leadership strayed greatly. Without them there would, in all likelihood, be no church at all today. Every splinter group came OUT OF the Catholic church -- a fact that is often ignored -- and more, none of them were interconnected except in the (mostly) un-educated claims of church historians in an era when actual research was not really a part of doctrinal life. And, yes, by that I am pointing fingers at those writers in the era of the 1600s to early 1900s that led so many people astray with their "reasoned" but not "researched" works that gave us Landmarkism, the Trail of Blood, etc.

Oh, and yes, I have done graduate and beyond work in church and Baptist history, read a good portion of the Anti-Nicene, Nicene, and Post Nicene Church Fathers series, as well as a good amount of other works left to posterity.

I would challenge you (as I did someone else above) to cite the OTHER sources that you have for your very sure take on church history.

 

[John of Japan]

On a very technical sense, you are correct.

Thank you kindly.

But that first church was also "catholic" and one was/is the same as the other for all practical purposes. It was not as if someone flipped a light switch at 313 AD and turned everything on/off, or was it? Perhaps I should not impugn your view until I let you hang it out there for all to see?

The early church was "catholic" but not "Catholic."

And, just to deflect what I know comes next... No, I do not think what happened in the Roman Catholic Church down through history is of God nor is it particularly biblical. That whole issue is rather well documented and the heresies, abuses, and anthropologically-centered power graps well known by virtually all people who take an interest in church doctrine and history. But we cannot so simply or easily just disavow ourselves for the Catholic church just because we don't really care for what they did in history. They were the Church for all practical purposes, even though the leadership strayed greatly. Without them there would, in all likelihood, be no church at all today.

I don't agree. I think God would have raised up churches even if the Catholic religion did not exist. But I do believe that there have always been true believers in Christ in Catholicism. I'm reminded of the one group of Catholic "Kirishitan" believers in the Japanese persecution by Tokugawa Ieyasu (early 17th century) who were burned to death by a river while even the children cried out, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

Every splinter group came OUT OF the Catholic church -- a fact that is often ignored -- and more, none of them were interconnected except in the (mostly) un-educated claims of church historians in an era when actual research was not really a part of doctrinal life. And, yes, by that I am pointing fingers at those writers in the era of the 1600s to early 1900s that led so many people astray with their "reasoned" but not "researched" works that gave us Landmarkism, the Trail of Blood, etc.

I'm not a Landmarker, nor do I endorse the "Trail of Blood."

Oh, and yes, I have done graduate and beyond work in church and Baptist history, read a good portion of the Anti-Nicene, Nicene, and Post Nicene Church Fathers series, as well as a good amount of other works left to posterity.

I would challenge you (as I did someone else above) to cite the OTHER sources that you have for your very sure take on church history.

I'm afraid I would not be able to debate you further. My whole library on church history is in Japan, and I fully admit I'm not expert in church history--though I do enjoy it. I bow to you.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Kimura lineage is orthodox. Inosanto is Reformation heresy! :tongue3:

and Jerry Poteet is Joel Osteen.

Sorry to derail this thread with martial arts humor, kids.

 

[Alive in Christ]

No need to apologize to me, as I wouldnt recognize anything "marshall arts" if they walked into the room and looked me right in the eye. :laugh:

 

[DHK]

They were the Church for all practical purposes, even though the leadership strayed greatly. Without them there would, in all likelihood, be no church at all today.

I don't believe this is an accurate statement at all. God has kept throughout all of history churches that have been true to the word of God, and didn't need the RCC's help. In fact they protested against it always. God knows them that are his. He promised never to forsake them. God's people have left a history that is written in blood more than in paper, (and I am not referring to the The Trail of Blood). For this reason documents are often relatively hard to find, especially when someone like Innocent III comes with the sole purpose of totally wiping out the Albigenses. Then you wonder why there are not much in the way or original works??

 

[robt.k.fall]

Concur, to make the RCC Christianity's lifeboat is as valid as making Ahab one of Israel's hero kings.

They were the Church for all practical purposes, even though the leadership strayed greatly. Without them there would, in all likelihood, be no church at all today.

I don't believe this is an accurate statement at all. God has kept throughout all of history churches that have been true to the word of God, and didn't need the RCC's help. In fact they protested against it always. God knows them that are his. He promised never to forsake them. God's people have left a history that is written in blood more than in paper, (and I am not referring to the The Trail of Blood). For this reason documents are often relatively hard to find, especially when someone like Innocent III comes with the sole purpose of totally wiping out the Albigenses. Then you wonder why there are not much in the way or original works??

 

[Rippon]

I don't believe this is an accurate statement at all. God has kept throughout all of history churches that have been true to the word of God, and didn't need the RCC's help. In fact they protested against it always.

In your zeal (often without knowledge) you forget that the Roman Catholic Church assemblies may have been the only gatherings of a Christian nature in a given area. Every RC church can't be broad-brushed. Some were more truly committed to the Lord than others. There have been some godly Roman Catholics. The elect of the Lord,no doubt have been among the Roman Catholics as well as other more orthodox bodies.

"They protested against it [R.C.]always"? Really? Document that.

 

[dcorbett]

My former Pastor Chappell said often: "When we get to Heaven, we will see catholics, methodists, even some mormons...but some baptists won't be there "

It's true that there are saved people in many Western religious groups. But the doctrine of their own churches negate grace and propogate works. Why would someone who believes they are saved by grace STAY in a works-based faith?