Independent Baptist

I don't know why this seems a big mystery sometimes.

Having been an Independent Baptist all my life, the biggest difference I know of is Missionary support.
IFB Misionaries travel to lots of churches raising support to go to the field. Each Church decides which Missionaries they'll support.

And Southern Baptists use the cooperative program. Now I'm guessing/asking. Does the International Missions Board approve Missionaries and all the Churches send the money to one big fund that the IMB distributes?

 

All Baptist churches are independent by definition. Most can and do associate with various groups, but not all. And some have multiple associations with multiple groups. And some various Baptist "groups" associate with other "groups" as well.

In fact, I believe BB Member Joseph M. Smith once stated that the D. C. Baptist Convention has triple affiliation with the ABC, USA; the SBC; and the Nat'l Baptist Convention, all simultaneously, and has had this for some years.

Ed.

 

Excellent answer, Ed.

 

Not exactly. Here's the way the Cooperative Program works. Churches send money to state conventions, which take part of it for their operations and send the rest to the SBC Executive Committee. The Ex-Com proposes a budget allocation for various agencies, including the IMB. The Convention approves the budget at its annual meeting. The IMB (and other agencies) then determine how the money allocated to it will be spent.

Churches may make direct contributions to the IMB (or any agency) The Lottie Moon offering is one example of direct contributions. These offerings bypass both the state conventions and the Ex-Com.

 

IB or IFB (both are proper) have the same basic doctrines as SBC, but, as mentioned, we support our missionaries directly. We choose which missionaries to support and we have sent missionaries out from our own church.

The Pastor and the Deacons make a decision and bring it before the church for a vote. We do not belong to any 'group'.

SBC has 'The Ambassadors' on Wednesday nights. IFB has 'King's Kids' (basically the same thing) except we pick (or write) our own material.

SBC has 'Lottie Moon' to help out people in the congregation. IFB has 'Love Offerings'. Same thing, different name.

I am an IFB, but would have no problem attending an SBC church and often do during revivals, etc. They are both scripturally sound.

 

A somewhat related question since the SBC was brought up. I have alwyas heard that it was nearly impossible to get a church out of the SBC without losing holdings, property, or savings. I have never believed one way or another in regards to if this was true or not, becuase I had no way or finding out and since I attend an IFB church, it really didn't matter. Can anyone expund further?

 

It's improbable, but not impossible.

Usually, when a church withdraws from the SBC, the SBC retains the building, property, etc. because it was the associations money that bought the land, built the building, etc.

The people have to find a new church and property at their own expense.

This has been my experience, albeit limited.

 

I go to an SBC church. Yearly we designate what gets sent to the SBC.
We also support missionaries directly. And they don't have to be
SBC missionaries either.

 

This brings up a couple of questions I have about the SBC based on 2 things that I've been told within the last few weeks. I should set your expectations by saying that I know virtually nothing about the SBC other than what the acronym stands for.

I have been told that there are SBC colleges/universities that don't agree with foundational doctrines such as the virgin birth, and others. In addition, I've been told that SBC churches don't have a choice but to support those colleges with the money that they pay to the SBC.

First, have I been told the truth about various SBC colleges?
Second, have I been told the truth about whether churches have a choice to support those colleges if they want to stay in the SBC?

Other questions may follow, but asking them out of ignorance of SBC practice would be foolish.

 

Actually "Lottie Moon" is not for the congregation but specifically an offering for Missions Work.

The congregations still have "Love offering" givin to help with special needs both within the congregation and anything the congregation deems appropriet to take the offering up for.

 

This is only if they (the church leaving) used associational funds to aquire and build the Structure and have not paid back the loan in full.

Editted..

All this is refered to and addressed BEFORE the assocation gives/loans to anyone for the aquisition or building needs of church body.

 

Very true and most all SBC church function this way.

 

The SBC has no power over a church anyway. The contract for loan from the SBC association in that state deals with the issue of who's it is.

IF a church borrows from the SBC, the SBC loans money to help procure what is being sought after. The church is then responsible to pay the money back and as far as I know they do so without interest. Once paid it is theirs, period and not SBC property

Otherwise it stays SBC property by contract.

 

First: No, you have not been told the truth, NOW but it was true in the 60 and 70's. There was a time when the SBC Colleges DID teach the denial of the Virgin Birth, inerrancy, and other such hereies. But then what was known as the "Conservative Resurgence" happened which God allowed for the SBC to come back to the truth.
Read here for a better grasp of how far they began to fall, and how strongly we came back to the truth:
http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/2478.article
But you can find more about it for yourself from there. :thumbs:

Secondly: When an SBC church sends money to SBC general funds it is allocated to all its agencies which includes colleges among them. However, you as a church CAN send money specifically where you chose it to go.

 

No one can take any holdings or savings from the church because they are only in the name of that church. At times when one or more churces establish a mission a reversion clause is often added in the deed of the property that sends the property back to the home church or churches should the church ever cease to be an SBC entity. The reason for this is in many cases the home churches are protecting that property from take overs of other denominations. The biggest fear among conservatives is those of charasmatic persuasion. While the church, that was established by other churches, remains an SBC entity the property is completely out of the control of the original sponsering churches. I believe there was some issues with churches that lost property to the state convention in Missouri (I could be wrong). But that was rare. And someone had top sign the dotted line on the agreement.

 

It was because of the inroads of liberalism back in those days in the SBC that the independent Baptist movement developed in the South. (In the North it was because of the liberalism in the ABC.) The early leaders of the independent Baptists in the South were all originally Southern Baptists.

(1) J. Frank Norris became persona non grata in the SBC back in the 1930's because of his exposes of liberal inroads into the SBC. He founded the World Baptist Fellowship, out of which also came the Bible Baptist Fellowship.

(2) John R. Rice (my grandfather) grew up and was educated SBC. In the 1930's (when he was in his mid-30's) he, along with Norris, opposed on the radio and in print the evolution being taught at his alma mater, Baylor U. For that he was told by Texas Convention bigwigs that he would never again preach in the SBC. After being blackballed, he began starting independent Baptist churches through tent meetings, then founded the Sword of the Lord.

(3) Lee Roberson founded Tennessee Temple College because of the liberalism in the SBC schools. However, he was essentially forced out of the convention for having an independent college.