Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fundamental Baptist Forum' started by pilgrimspen, Jul 13, 2012.
Aside from the strict use of KJV by the IFB what other ways are they different
Firstly, this is a common misconception. While steriotypically IFB churches are KJVO, this is not always the case. Each church has the freedom to decide whether or not they want to hold to that position.
The main difference between IFB and other Baptists is that each church has the authority to choose it's own stances on everything from doctrine to standards; hence the term "independent". While other Baptists have this freedom (ie, Southern Baptist), IFB have no commitee offering guidance or issuing edicts or anything.
With this freedom comes great diversity. The steriotypical IFB is the steriotype because that type of IFB are the bigger churches, and most well known. I've visited IFB churches that I would consider to be liberal, and I've visited IFB churches that would consider me liberal.
Again, while there are steriotypes, it's only because the most well known IFB are like that. Every IFB church can choose for itself.
I would sightly disagree - ALL Baptist churches may choose their own stance - thus ALL Baptist churches are independent. The SBC voted on the BFM 2000. Not all SBC churches adhere to the entire document
I would sightly disagree - IFB's often accept guidance from the "leaders" of the IFB movement. Not up to date on the current leaders - but men of the past such as Rice, Hyles,Falwell, ect.
and yet many of them are small churches as well
Fully agree -
Some groups such as the GARBC likes to say they are independent - but one of their slogans is "Together we can do more" - much like the SBC.
Our DOM has stated that SBC churches are more independent that Independent Baptists!
But those who call themselves Independent - do not like it when churches in associations and conventions call themselves independent. ( note the the upper and lower case)
One final note - a number of churches in the GARBC felt the group was going astray and formed the Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America
Salty, I did not mean to make it sound as if other baptists could not choose for themselves. In fact, I purposely added the phrase
I understand that SB churches have no obligation to follow everything that the SBC puts out, IFB don't have anyone even putting out things. If there are leaders that are putting out guidance to follow in the IFB movement, then they are IFB in name only. The whole reason to be IFB is just that, to be independent.
I agree completely that some of the "steriotypical" IFB are small churches as well. But my point was that the reason the steriotype is even there is because of big churches like the one in Hammond.
The statement about some SBC being more independent that IFB made me laugh. Not at the statement, but because I've experienced it first hand. Some IFB follow another church so much that the church they are following might as well be an organization issuing edicts to follow. Personally, I don't have any problem with SBC or anyone else calling themselves inedependent, because I understand that they do have that freedom.
First some negative history.
For a number of decades beginning about the mid 60's the IFB became enthralled with the "fundamental" part of that title.
There began the self glorification that a certain grouping or church was not as "fundamental" as their church.
Many adopted man generated standards of what was significant to God and a person was not "right with God" if some "fundamental" standard was ignored.
Now, to the aspects of how that plays out between the two groups.
The typical SBC church continues to be viewed by the IFBers as worldly and not holding to the "fundamentals" of the faith.
Originally, the IFB churches were merely independent from a convention, and fundamental in doctrine (virgin birth, blood atonement, salvation by grace alone, ...). Many preachers of the SBC held social ties to organizations such as rotaries, lions clubs, masons, country clubs ... and the IFB preachers considered these associations as being compromising the testimony of Christ. I remember when the SBC church would hold dances in the fellowship hall, and wedding parties when the punch was "spiked." I know this wasn't convention wide, but the fact that it did go on fed the IFB view of the SBC departure from the fundamental doctrines.
The IFB churches supported universities and Bible colleges separate from the SBC because they viewed the SBC schools such as Baylor here in Texas as teaching contrary to the Scriptures and hiring professors who were not even saved and denied the fundamentals.
Many IFB pastors and evangelists of the past came out (or were kicked out) of the SBC. Roloff and Rice were both graduates of Baylor. I was thinking that Criswell was the song leader for Rice for a short time. Anyway, when Baylor (which used to be more strict than Bob Jones) moved to "modernism" the IFB pastors separated further from the SBC churches. Some folks forget that Baylor was segregated from the beginning up to somewhere in the late 60's and contributed to the "modernist" by not continuing segregation.
Please note that segregation was a hot button issue. It wasn't just a "southern" problem. Although many IFB churches were integrated, they didn't particularly want the colleges that way because of the mixed dating marriage problem it might bring. Even in this day, there is a racial sting attached to such matches. Very few SBC schools and seminaries were not segregated by both race and even gender throughout much of the early to mid 1900's. Gender was abolished but racial divides continued for more time.
Can you imagine a "mixed gender dorm" at any fundamental school? That will give you some idea of the divide the SBC and IFB have on just one issue of schooling.
There also became a huge problem with the convention and the cooperative program of the SBC. At one time the cooperative program ruled the convention and in my opinion was bold about throwing support behind pastors and programs without regard to righteousness. Many errors and deceitful coverups were kept from the general knowledge of the local pastors and churches. As a result, the IFBers would bring a certain accountability to the mission efforts by supporting directly and creating cooperating mission boards. I am not saying that there were not errors and excess in the IFB side, but this was again a reflection of the view (right or wrong) that the IFB had toward the SBC.
Seminaries of the SBC were and still are considered hot beds of liberalism (anathema to the IFBer). In comparison the IFBer would embrace schools of Bible such as: Tennessee Temple, which was considered an IFB school even though it was a SBC church. BJU, although it was started by a Methodist, the school became more IFB supported than any other group. Maranatha and Pillsbury graduates were viewed more favorably than a Southern Seminary graduate, because of the "liberalism" that had infested the SBC schooling (stating the view of the IFBer).
Generally the IFB folks are independent republicans. Rare it is to find a social democrat like Mark White, Ann Richards, Jimmy Carter, (all noted SBC affiliated - the first two graduates of Baylor) in the ranks of membership of an IFB church.
I could write more, but you kind of get the idea.
If you take a SBC church of the 50's that would be the IFB church of the 60's. If you take the SBC church of the 60's that would be the IFB church of the 70's and much of the 80's. If you take the SBC church of today, that would be the IFB church of the 90's.
As the world becomes more "modernistic" so has the church. There are very few that don't follow the trends some lagging far behind. And those that don't are highly criticized and ridiculed by the "modernists."
A larger group of older pastors are seeing the end of their ministry not with the selection of a person like them, but a person who brings modernists ideas and ways. It is dividing congregations, and disheartening a greater number of older believers who feel disenfranchised.
Thank you for making my point in much fewer words.:1_grouphug:
And Agedman - excelletn post! :thumbs:
just a point on your statement that IFB's would not join civic groups.
Our GARBC pastor, in Texas would not join the local minsters association - but joined the Rotaries in town to fulfill his civic responsibility - which he thought was important.
Pilgrim - one other thing - Many IFB'ers are NOT all KJO
isn;t the biggest difference involving their understanding of 'biblical seperation", as those churches tend to stay isolated away from mainstream baptists even, at least my experiences with them here in mi!
Some of the Independents are so independent they will not even fellowship, let alone associate with each other.
John R. Rice and J. Frank Norris led the specific fight against Baylor because of a prof who taught Darwinian evolution. (I don't remember his name.) Criswell was not Rice's song leader that I remember, but was called to preach under him, an as a boy of 12, maybe, told JRR he would go to Baylor and get a big Baylor belt buckle like JRR had.
The FMB had theologically liberal missionaries right up until they instituted the requirement that missionaries sign the Faith and Message. I know, I went to Japanese language school with them.
Many fundamentalists are watching closely the developments in the SBC. My remaining doubt in the area of missions is that the damage done by the liberalism still exists on the mission fields of the world.
Temple never was an SBC school, it was always independent. In fact, that was precisely the reason that Lee Roberson came out of the SBC: they would not recognize Temple. So Highland Park BC and Temple were both independent Baptist from shortly after WW2 until just recently, when they both re-entered the SBC (and are looked at a little suspiciously, according to an SBC friend here on the BB).
Take the word "liberalism" out of quotes and you have it right. John R. Rice carefully documented real theological liberalism in the SBC schools in the Sword of the Lord throughout the '60's and '70's, putting it all together in a book of newspaper clippings and the like entitled, Southern Baptist Wolves in Sheeps' Clothing.
Reference the recent history of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. An SEBC prof who was there back in the day told me how the liberals would mock the conservatives from the chapel pulpit. Then when the changes came re the Faith and Mission, the liberals left en masse and started their own seminary, declaring that SEBC would soon close its doors.
Not sure what you mean by the term "modernist." Please enlighten. The word is rarely used in IFB circles today.
Sigh, Some thoughts
Yet another SBC centric IFB thread. :BangHead:
Not all "IFB" churches, schools, mission boards, ect. have their roots in the Southern Baptist Convention. These folks have their roots in the old Northern Baptist Movement\Convention.
The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International and the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches are the two largest Northern related organizations. They are also the oldest having been formed in the 1920s and 30s.
The Northern descended schools would include among others Maranatha, Pillsbury (now closed), Central Baptist Seminary, and Calvary Baptist Seminary-Lansdale, PA.
As for not joining local ministerial associations, this is nothing new for Baptists. We have long been wary of being mixed in with non-Baptists "clergy." If I were to join my local m.a., I'd be sitting down with the female United Presbyterian pastor, the Lutheran pastor, the priests in charge of the two RCC churches.
To get a sense of where Northern IFBdom is coming from, I suggest y'all take a look at how the Liberals, Modernists and their enablers took over the NBC.
It's getting late and I don't want to harm any more electrons.
I'm familiar with many Southern Baptist churches which are every bit as conservative as some IFB churches. I remember that even in my own church back in the late 1960s and early 1970s our pastor and staff openly admired with some IFB leaders, because our own denominational structure was riddled with liberals. But, we soon backed away from the fundamentalist label after we saw it becoming synonymous with legalism.
By that, I mean that we found ourselves judging others (and being judged) by the length of skirts on women, hair length on men. It was sort of "we don't smoke, drink or chew, or go with girls that do."
We who attended Sunday morning, Sunday night and Wednesday were far more spiritual that those who didn't come to mid-week prayer meeting.
I'm glad to say our SBC church began to move away from such legalism by the mid-1970s, while remaining solidly conservative in our theology.
Well, maybe we've loosened up a bit. My pastor often preaches without a coat and tie.
And I noticed tonight that not a single man in our worship service had a suit on.
For the story of the battle over the NBC, please see, Beal's In Pursuit of Purity.
What's the problem here?
It seems nobody want to interact with some one who has no ties with the SBC or any of its prodigals. It's not my fault me and mine haven't had any organizational ties with what is now the SBC since the before the ACW. It's not my fault the NBC affiliated schools went Modernist and Liberal before Pearl Harbor and in some cases before the sinking of the Titanic. It's not my fault the mission agencies affiliated with the NBC were shot through with Liberals and Modernists by the late 30s.
The Modernists and Liberals in the NBC found enablers to side with them on the convention floor. Because of the way the NBC was lost, Northerners held out no hope for a turn around for the SBC. The resurgence has proven some of the more dire predictions wrong. But as noted above, the SBC is not our mother convention.
Time has proven how right the fundamentalists were to oppose the liberalism in the NBC, since now they have gone so far as to ordain homosexual "preachers."
In my library in Japan I have Chester Tulga's The Case Against Modernism in Foreign Missions. Tulga carefully documented the rampant liberalism among missionaries under the NBC board, which as I remember was the main impetus for the fundamentalist opposition to the NBC leadership.
IIRC, the biggest problem the Fundamentalists had was the Convention on more than one occasion refused to draft a statement of faith and the hold the missionaries accountable to it.
Just a note: NBC - refers to the Northern Baptist Convention, now know as the American Baptist Churches.
- not the current National Baptist Convention,USA ; or the National Baptist Convention of America
Please define Modernists/liberalists, as remmember that when say Chrsitianity Today, under carl henry came out as the "new Evangelicalism", they were being tagged by Fundementals to some sgree as being 'modernists"
And some saw the "new evangelicals" becoming liberal by adopting bibles versions such as Niv/nasb!
Sorry, but I'm not going to re-fight battles of yesterday. I refer you to Beal's In Pursuit of Purity for the in depth analysis or Tulga's The Case Against Modernism in Foreign Missions.
I don't want to argue or fight, just asking how you would define those 2 terms being used!
Okay, just keep in mind that back in the day a lot of intemperate language was used in the debates. And my focus in using the terms is the period 1920-1950. So, my cut off is long before the NIV or the NASB ever saw the light of day.
For the most part the two labels over time became interchangeable. Modernists and Liberals effectively denied the Virgin Birth, the Divine Inspiration of Scripture, the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ among other positions. Oh yeah, I forgot to reference Machen's Christianity and Liberalism.