Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fundamental Baptist Forum' started by Repent-or-Burn, Sep 19, 2009.
What are the differences, and "why?" (from scripture.)
Doctrinally, we for the most part agree. The main difference is missionary support. SBC supports missions from the co-op program. This allows the missionary to get right to the field. IFB will go on deputation anywhere from 1 - 4 years to raise enough support to get to the field. Of course when they are overseas they risk the possibility of a church disbanding, merging or just dropping support.
By the way, most SB consider ourselves as independent! Check this poll on BB
While the church I am a member of is SBC, we also support independent misionaries.
Yes, SBC churches are autonomous, just as are IFB. However, SBC churches (usually) adhere to The Baptist Faith & Message. IFB churches do their own thing, hence the "Independent" in the moniker.
It is not original with me but someone said that all Baptist churches are independent, some just choose to cooperate.
Not in terms of fundamentalist, not all SBC churches would be characterized as fundamentalist probably mainly because of the KJV and the some issues concerning separation.
Using the KJV is not a fundamental last I checked. Some SBC churches are not fundamentalist churches, but some actually are... as long as you are talking fundamentals of faith and not fundamentals of legalism.
By the way, to deny a fundamental of the faith is to promote a heresy.
If you say that using the KJV is a fundamental of the faith, then that is heresy.
Using it is not. Preferring it is not, even believing it is best or only accurate version is not.
Believing the KJV is a fundamental of the faith is a heresy though.
There are quite a few IFB churches who also could not be characterized as fundamentalist. Probably as averages go more IFB than SBC would be, but there are certainly exceptions.
There are advantages to both patterns of missionary support and many SBC churches are not supporting individual missionaries. That model gives greater accountability from the missionary back to the church, but it also can excite and increase participation from the sending church. As a true partner in ministry they may raise money for specific projects, send specific gifts to meet special needs, and even organize missions trips of support and information. The biggest advantage of the co operative model is that missionaries can spend more time on the field and don't have to make visits back home as often. I would say both have their place.
From scripture? There are none.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: South Dakota
IFB vs SBC
What are the differences, and "why?" (from scripture.)
Actually I'll expand on that a bit further....from Scripture there is no precedent for ANY denominations at all....... Just "local" assemblies of believers in Christ that make up (collectively) the "universal" church known in scripture as the body of Christ as taught in 1 Corinthians 12. That said,I am a member of a local baptist assembly because I feel that doctrinally they stick closer to the literal truth of scripture than most all of the other "denominations".
In Christ Jesus,
I meant, what are the differences.. And, what are the scriptures that each would use to prove why they believe in those differences?
When it comes to the way we support missions, there is no Biblical mandate for one over the other - it is simply a matter of preference.
Another big difference is legalism. A verse that many IFB's use is "come out and be ye separate"
II Corinthians 6:17. Legalism can be any extreme from long hair on men, to short skirts for women, to eating in the church building (I Cor 11:21-22). CCM vs Traditional music, not only separation, but secondary separation.
Hows that for a start?
Having been both, and calling myself an SIFB (Southern Ind. Fund. Baptist), I can tell you that the only difference between the two in MOST cases is not Scriptural but preferential. There are exceptions to that on both sides.
There are 'liberal' SBC AND IFB churches, but the definition of liberal would be antithetical. An SBC 'liberal' would remove things from the Bible, and an IFB 'liberal' would add things to the Bible, IMHO.
I agree that KJVO is not a fundamental and is a legalistic add on. But to many IFB church they have added it as one.
Maybe the KJVO is not typical of IFB churches, but around here it is.
Would you mind explaining the correct view on that verse and those subjects?
Basically the same here. I was pointing out the fact that using the KJV is not a fundamental even though most IFB says it is one.
As the pastor of an IFB church who was trained andd prepared for ministry in a SBC, who was IFB before he went SBC. I have found that some IFB and some SBC churches hold to kjo. I, personally hold to NASB preferred and the fundimentals are not law but spiritual principles which we use to govern our lives. I have ben called liberal by some and conservative by others. I don't care about the label, I care about the scripture.
Having Pastored both IFB and SBC Churches I wish there was no difference but I find that the attitude of the Pastors usually translates into perceived differences in peoples minds. It amazes the misconceptions that one congegartion has about the church down the street.
That's for sure. When I went to the first SBC I pastored, all my IFB buddies wouldn't return calls and some expressed an interest in asking me to return my ordination. :tonofbricks: One guy even asked me how Nashville got my sermons to me. :laugh:
Tom, I did grow up IFB and my dad was a pastor. He was in many ways more moderate than the more extreme legalists. one term he has for a lot of the types that you are describing is "us four and no more" I am not sure that he originated that saying but it is true of many IFB churches.
It is also important to point out to those who are unfamiliar is that IFB churches are no where close to a unified movement. Rather they are a collections of 100s of small groups of local congregations normally united on a particular emphasis such as worship style, KJV, dress standards, politics etc.
Dale is quite right. The IFB movement is no where close to being a structurally unified movement. Overall, what unity it does have comes from a unity of "philosophy" and even that unit is minimal in many cases.
It is worth remembering the IFB movement came out of the issues of the 1930s and 40s. The seminal groups were\are the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (leaving the Northern Baptist Convention c. 1932) and the Baptist Bible Fellowship (leaving the SBC around the same time). They left their respective conventions due to the battles over modernism. Later in the late 40s, the founders of the Conservative Baptist Association left the Northern Baptist Convention. In the mid 60s, the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship disassociated itself from the Conservative Baptist Association.
Another observation, the IFB movement is over 3 generations old. So, it is good to note the differences between IFBs whose philosophical roots are in the Northern Baptists and those whose roots are in the Southern Baptists.