I have a question...

I can honestly say that my church here is a very open church as far as believers go. My pastor doesnt stress membership, he stresses attendence. I was gone from here for over 6 years and it was a mistake. Well, my pastor and the deacons that have known me for years say that it took my roaming and problems to bring me back to where I am today....but that is another topic.

Anyway, we are IFB, and there are only 28 official members of the church, but the last few Sundays, we have had over 100 in attendance. Last Sunday we had communion, and my pastor stressed that communion was open to all beleivers that felt they were right with God. (Well right as a human can be I guess), and membership in the church didnt matter, only being a member of the Kingdom of God did.

I have been to many IFB churches down south during my 6 years of absence from here, and I can honestly say that a lot of the rumors flying around about alot of IFB churches are true. Many are exclusive, condemning and judgemental. Several IFB pastors I know control everything in the church and wont allow any help, (can you say "control freak"?)

Many dont allow pants on women, applause for kids chior, or divorced people to join. And they dont mind telling you so.

Since I have a criminal background from over 20 years ago, many IFB churches only see me as a divorced criminal, and not a repentant christian.

I can honestly say that the church that God finally led me back to here is none of those things. They will drive hundreds of miles and spend their last dollar to help anyone, member or not. They love me because of what God has made of me, and dont condemn me because of what I used to be. In fact, they make a big deal out of who I am now, and actually celebrate how far God has brought me, instead of dwelling on where I came from.

Yeah, lots of IFB churches earned the bad rep they have, but mine is the best ever.

And Tim, knowing how you feel and represent God as a pastor, I know my pastor and you would get along great.

AJ

 

BTW, I was raised in a SBC church that held closed communion, and now attend an IFB church that opens communion to all beleivers, members or not.....go figure

AJ

 

Tlim, you are. In fact, you are making my case for me. Your congregation, my congregation and thousands like them have pooled their resources to support missionaries. The money and support comes from real visible congregations, who support real people with real money. This is not "The Church" in action, this is actual churches carrying out the Great Commission.

Paul, Barnabas and Silas and Mark were not sent out by "The Church" They were sent out by one congregation, at Antioch. They did not report back to "The Church." The were accountable to the folks at Antioch.

Every missionary you support, whether as a congregation or in a cooperative effort with other congregations, are accountable ultimately to those congregations.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

 

The problem with "IFB" is that by very definition it is a broad term.
My church is a reformed Baptist church but we certainly hold to the fundamentals and we are not in any sort of denomination or association.

AJ, is your IFB church a King James Version only church?

 

Nearly every reference to church in the New Testament speaks of a local congregation. Sometimes, it is referred to in a generic or institutional sense, in the same way we speak of the family. We fret over the breakdown of the family, but there is no universal family. Breakdowns occur in real families.

Then we may find the church described in a prospective sense. In the Revelation 21, John describes the New Jerusalem, coming down from heaven, adorned as a bride prepared for her husband.. In V.9 the angel tells John, "come with me, I'm going to show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." What he shows John is the holy city, Jerusalem. All of this is yet in the future, I believe.

So, what appears to be a reference to a "universal" church is a reference to the church in an institutional or generic sense.

Then, there's I Corinthians 12:13, where Paul says we are all baptized into one body.( By the way, he's referring to water baptism), Generally interpreted to refer to the "Universal Church." But in v.27, he calls the Corinthian congregation the body of Christ. He says "Ye are the body of Christ." A local congregation is the body of Christ. Yours. Mine. Paul was not describing his baptism into the church at Corinth. He was describing how one becomes a member of a local church.

This fits with Paul's statement in Acts 20, where he describes the congregation at Ephesus as one "which he has purchased with his own blood."

In sum, there is a reason it's called the "Universal Invisible Church." It's so invisible you can't find it. But I can find local churches all over the place.

 

Regarding the Lord's Supper, I think Tiny Tim's perception is generally correct. If you share the view that I hold regarding the local church, the natural outgrowth of that view is closed communion. Universal Church folks nearly always are open, because they recognize that their view demands it.

Dispensationalism indirectly require open communion, since a key element is a distinction between Israel and the Church.

I gather that some, probably all, posters here hold to the pre-eminence of the local church, while still holding to the Universal Church view. I can't imagine that any of you are closed communionists.

 

Jprince, my church is in the GARBC, so I believe you are correct in your assumption that we belive in the universal church but support our local church, too.

 

Two reasons that makes the Baptist faith unique is the autonomy of the local church and the absence of a creed. Personally, I would not want to recite a creed Sunday after Sunday that was thought up by some high level church council. Each of us has the Holy Spirit in us, and He guides us into all things. The only way I would even consider one is if it was written by the local church. Also, I would not belong to a church that had some higher level of church government telling me who my pastor was going to be, how I did my budget, or share church property with such an organization. If a local congregation so wishes, it can sever ties with the SBC, KBC, or the local association with a simple vote.

The local church is vital to mission work. Our church has supported missionaries that the SBC would not. Our church raised the money to build a church in Uganda, soley by the local congregation.

It would be hard to believe that anyone on this board (in their right mind) would believe that only Baptists are part of the universal church. As said above, the true church of all believers will be from all nations and faiths. There is no doubt the universal church exists, but its function is in the future. The local church carries out God's work in the here and now. Now, I see nothing wrong with associations, even other denominations, working together as a group to help those in need, spread the Gospel, visit the lost, or do whatever is necessary for the Lord. But the bottom line is, the local church is the foundation of any of God's work.

Even with different churches and denominations working together, this is not the universal church. It is an alliance of local churches. The universal church never fed the hungry, visited the sick, or spread the Gospel.

I do not know how communion got put into the discussion from the original subject, but I am 100% opposed to closed communion. Since the local church is autonomous, each church has the right to decide how it will administer communion. Since this thread is not about the pros and cons of each side, I will leave it at that.

 

Yes Dale, we only use KJV, however it is not harped on and force-fed like I have seen in other churches. If you were to bring an NIV to church, noone would say anything at all to you to correct you.

The biggest problem I see in worship with several different MVs is that it would be hard for someone with say The Amplified Version, or The Message to follow along with the reading.

I was just thinkning though, that The Message might be the one version that might put my pastor over the edge and comment on.....but he would do it in private.

AJ

 

My pastor is currently teaching a series in adult Sunday school on the seven dispensational ages. We dont believe God has changed, but we do believe that He changes the way He deals with us. I have many principles I want to teach my 3 year old as he grows up. When he is 10 years old I will still be teaching him the same principles but I will have to adjust how I teach him. We believe that this is how God has dealt with man down through the ages.

We also believe that God's covenant with Abraham is just as valid today as when God made it, and that He will evintually fulfill all of His promises to Isreal, which btw, are not the same as the promises He has made to the church. (Here is an example of what I mean by the catholic or universal church, these promises were made to all believers and not restricted to any one local assembly)

Although baptist churches dont hold to an actual creed, it would be easier to know what the local church actually believes beyond the standard doctrinal statement that most churches have. The doctrinal statement sure leaves out alot of details that I believe actually do matter.

AJ

 

I am sure that dispensationalists will jump down my throat but I believe they do not hold to a universal church. I do consistent with The Baptist Faith and Message adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta, Georgia on June 14, 2000 is as follows [Section VI]:

“The New Testament also speaks of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

That sounds like one universal church to me. Of course that is not a visible church as the Roman Catholics would claim.

 

Baptists would do well to adopt the 1677/1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

 

Baptists would do well to stay away from all creeds. The Holy Spirit and the Bible are all the creeds we need.

 

Most Baptists in a congregation are ignorant of Baptist doctrine just as they are ignorant of the Bible. Baptists have a creed though they do not call it that; it is called the Baptist Faith and Message. They need a Confession of Faith which is much more explicit about what Baptist doctrine is.

 

I can!:thumbs:

 

For some unknown reason, if I heard this from a Pastor, I would tell him it was not his church, and the reason is -

'Cause you ain't got no nail prints in your hands! That's why!!

Ed

 

Quote: Originally Posted by Tom Butler
I can't imagine that any of you are closed communionists.

Shows you how much I know!

 

Glad I could help... uh... I think!:laugh:

 

Whew.. I had to read that twice.. I first thought it said...

Closet communists!!! :tonofbricks:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Butler
closed communionists.

I had to look twice myself after I wrote it. Is there a better word, like communioners, communionites, communionians?

Maybe closed communion humans, closed supperites. closed mealists.