Doctrinal Differances

Of course. I don't know anyone who thinks otherwise, though I am sure there are some.

I think that is certainly a part of it.

True.

 

I see no difference.

What about SBC churches?

 

I grew up in a conservative SBC church and now attend an IFB church.

If you look at the doctrinal statement of most Baptist churches, you will find they are almost identical. If you interview SBC and IFB pastors on Bible issues you will get mostly the same answers from most.

So, to me, the diffenence between most (not all) SBC and IFB churches is application.

My IFB pastor teaches biblical application in our lives every time he speaks, and he expects his congregation to apply biblical application in their lives. In fact, he has made his own brothers step down as Sunday school teachers, ushers, ect, when they were having problems living biblically. He speaks openly about worldly problems and temptations that we face everyday. (He even talks about politics....gasp!!!!)

IMO, however, the SBC churches I have visited in the last few years, taught a very generic, congregation friendly sermon, designed not to step on anybodies toes or offend anyone.

The SBC pastors i know believe mostly the same things that my IFB pastor believes, but for some reason, dont teach it as strongly.

This may sound harsh, but IMO the IFB churches come closer to actually practicing what they preach.

IFB seems to me to be what SBC was 30 years ago. Our IFB church doesnt have "venues" for worship like this:

http://saddlebackfamily.com/servicetimesanddirections/index.html

AJ

 

In terms of what?

What about them? I am not sure what you are asking. My apologies.

 

One IFB fellowshiping another IFB, and not an SBC, doesn't really put to rest the fact that IFBs do not fellowship others.

Do IFBs fellowship them?

 

The statement was made that "IFB's refuse to cooperate with any other church." That is plainly false. The fact that they don't fellowship with certain churches, doesn't mean that they don't fellowship with other churches.

So yes, that puts it to rest in terms of the charge that was made.

Some do. Not all of them do.

There were, in the past and in some sense continuing, problems with the SBC in terms of toleration of heterodoxy. For that reason, many churches rightly separated from them. Now that the SBC has cleaned house a bit under Mohler and some others, that problem is far less than it was.

But there is no "one size fits all" in terms of SBC/IFB cooperation. Not every SBC church fellowships in any meaningful sense with every other SBC church.

 

Fair enough!

I see your point.

True.

 

There used to be a difference, now I'm not sure you could tell the difference. Fundamentalism has overtaken the SBC and now it sits in the same legalistic waters as those that consider themselves IFB.

 

Legalistic? Can you give examples?

AJ

 

So you think the SBC and IFB believe that they can gain merit with God through their good works?

 

As entities, no. But there are groups in each camp that do.

 

I would be willing to state that this is true in every denomination in the US.

 

yup, that too.

 

I see most people here consider the Great Commission as given to the church, or to all believers. I have a couple of points to make here. First, notice that it is given to the eleven, not to all the disciples. Secondly notice the commandment given, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The same commandment to teach, or make disciples of, all nations says to baptize them. Now, if the command to go and teach is given to the church, or all believers, then the command (and thus the authority) to baptize is as well.

Or, could it be that the GC was given to the ministry, represented by the eleven here?

If that is the case, wouldn't it then make sense that the command to "go ye" meant just that - for the ministers to go and preach as the Spirit leads - rather than for the church to send ministers?

 

The GC was given to the first church ever to exist and those that came after it. Thus the authority to baptize resides in the local church, not in individuals.

We as members of a local church are charged with carrying out the GC--under the auspices of our church.

 

I think what you have observed is true across all denominations and conventions as a whole. However there are pastors who have stepped up to ther plate and do lead the congregation. I am convinced that peopel respond well except for the lukewarm. Society as a whole is manifest in the church as well. Peope do not go from being passive to being bold usually unless something motivates them.

 

The promise to be with them "til the end of the age" doesn't mean much if it was only for the 11.

Yes, the authority to baptize belongs to the church. The church, made up of believers, is to carry out the command to make disciples by planting churches. You cannot separate this from the church.

No, the NT is a church centered thing. The church sends ministers as we see in the NT. So again, to separate this is to miss the point.

 

Again, the statement is made, not to all disciples of Jesus Christ at that time, but only to the eleven. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Why, if the commission was to the church and all believers, wasn't it then given to all believers? Why was it only given to the ministry?

So, anyone in the church can baptize? If a child comes forward for baptism, their parent (not a God-called minister) could then baptize him/her? If the commandment is to all believers then that is the logical result.

The church at Antioch sent Barnabas and Paul when the Holy Ghost directed them to. They didn't have a man run board that sent out preachers, but rather God was directing.

 

Jesus first disciples, the twelve, were the material which made up the first church, established during his earthly ministry. They were the inner circle. They, in essence, were the cadre.

The book of Acts related the actions of the church at Jerusalem, the church at Antioch, in Samaria, Damascus, and throughout Asia Minor.

Jesus died for his churches (Acts 20:28) Don't diminish them by elevating the individual into some Lone Ranger-type evangelist, who operates independently of the local church.

 

I apologize for helping derail this thread. What was the original question?