1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is IFB a denomination?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by NaasPreacher (C4K), Apr 8, 2004.

  1. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Excellent post that points out a major flaw in the IFB movement. Thank you. </font>[/QUOTE]An IFB Pastor here in agreement with Seigfried.
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The IFB is a denomination, though not in the classic sense. Its beliefs are separate and distinctive from other Baptists, such as the SBC, for example. We Baptists tend to eschew classic labels (such as using "convention" instead of "denomination"), but it's what it is. A duck with lipstick is still a duck.

    We shouldn't be afraid of being a called a denom. It's not a dirty word.
     
  3. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    7
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The IFB is a denomination, though not in the classic sense. Its beliefs are separate and distinctive from other Baptists, such as the SBC, for example. We Baptists tend to eschew classic labels (such as using "convention" instead of "denomination"), but it's what it is. A duck with lipstick is still a duck.

    We shouldn't be afraid of being a called a denom. It's not a dirty word.
    </font>[/QUOTE]There is no "convention" with IFB, thus the independent part. With SBC, they must, correct me if I'm wrong, send money to the convention for administrative purposes and so do not have total autonomy.

    This seems to be along the lines of the Baptists not being Protestant perennial argument.

    Jason
     
  4. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    7
    Faith:
    Baptist
    As for our church, I don't know how anyone could say that we were part of a denomination. We are truly autonomous. We have no contact with a central office somewhere, we do not contribute to a missionary co-op or to a Bible college, we are not aligned with or promote Hyles or any other goon who wants to make themselves "king of the fundamentalists," and the Lord leads us as to which missionaries to support.

    It is only our beliefs and stand on the Bible as the word of God and not a denomination, creed of man, Baptist Faith & Message, or any other document or earthly creation that identify us as

    Independent - no obligation to any earthly office or institution, only obligation is to Christ.

    Fundamental - Believe the basic bible doctrines of orthodox Christianity without giving an inch to the liberals who would want to compromise Christianity with the belief system of the world.

    and

    Baptistic - adhere to the historical, biblical Baptist distinctives, similar to fundamental.

    Jason
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Jason,

    I agree with 99.9% of your post, but don't think we need to use words like "goon" to describe fundamentalist leaders.

    Good post otherwise.
     
  6. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    7
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Ha! You caught that. I typed it and didn't catch it. I guess it shows what I really think, but it was indeed a very poor choice of words. I should have said, "man." Please see this post as a replacement for that.

    Jason
     
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    [​IMG] I certainly understand the emotion Jason. Thanks for the replacement though.

    Roger
     
  8. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I believe in some places the above comments would be termed a Freudian slip.
     
  9. swaimj

    swaimj <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Siegfried, I, too, think your post is right on!
     
  10. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You joined a SBC church? Oh the horror. :D

    Does an SBC church approve missionaries individually for funding or does someone on a missions committee say who is acceptable and who isn't?
     
  11. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, where I am a member, they support about 25 missionaries apart from the convention.

    Isn't that what independents do?

    Again, with all the posts so far, I don't really see how any of you can exclude the SBC from IFB.
     
  12. Siegfried

    Siegfried Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    ScottJ,

    SBC churches can support whatever missionaries they want if they do so outside the SBC mechanism. The International Mission Board and the North American Mission Board approve all the SBC missionaries. Any money the churches give to the Cooperative Program is divvied up by the convention among those missionaries. Churches can designate money to specific missionaries (either SBC or non-SBC) outside the CP, but they are pretty limited in excluding funding from apostates (i.e. Baptist World Alliance, and at the state level, some publications, colleges, etc.)

    Independents almost exclusively designate money to specific missionaries, but the mission boards are the conduit for the cash. Independents also allow mission boards to carry a lot of the water on missionary approval, accountability, etc. This is a weakness, IMO, not a strength. It's another example of local churches abdicating autonomy. I do sense that the trend is away from this state of affairs.

    Thanks for the posts of encouragement. It's always good to know you're not the only one who's right! ;)
     
  13. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Siegfried,

    As a IFB missionary getting support from IFB churches I appreciate the work of my mission board. It gives the smaller churches especially, who may not have the resources to "check up" on their missionaries to have a source to help in that regard.

    I am first accountable to the Lord of course, then my sending church and pastor, then my other supporting churches, and then finally my mission board. They do provide a great service for me with gathering support, dealing with taxes and insurance, etc. This takes a huge load off of each supporting church.

    Just a few thoughts on the issue.

    Roger
     
  14. Siegfried

    Siegfried Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Roger,

    Your point is well taken. I do not mean to say mission boards have no place. It is my sense that independent churches tend to abdicate their authority to them. The more leadership they take, the less independent the churches are that work with them. One could argue that this is good or bad. My point here is that we need to be honest about it and encourage local churches to take as much leadership as possible.

    At least one IFB mission board that claims not to hold to a KJVO position insists that its missionaries use the KJV when they plant or preach in churches in the US (I'm not sure what they require in English-speaking foreign fields). This is the case even when they're preaching in an IFB church that uses the NASB or NKJV, for example. Is this board not stomping on local church autonomy? Several IFB colleges do the same. I really wonder how they can call themselves Baptist in good conscience.
     
  15. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Points taken Siegfried and I think that is a danger.

    I had not considered the version policy. I don't see a real problem though. Although not purely KJV it is all that I preach out of and would have a hard time preaching out of another version even if it was primarily in a NASV or NKJV church. I have never had one of those churches require me to preach out of their preferred version.

    Saying that, I think your concern is valid and a point to be considered.

    I do agree that it is too easy for a local church to abdicate accountability to the mission board.

    Roger
     
  16. superdave

    superdave New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thats because I have never heard of anyone being NASB only or NKJVonly, it is a heresy reserved for only a privileged few.

    Many use the KJV in every church probably just to avoid conflict, since no one seems to have a problem with the KJV itself.

    As far as Mission boards, our church (IFB) has many missionaries from the same boards, but the decisions are based on the missionary, not just a rubber stamp approval based on their board. There are a few that have had to be removed from our support in the past couple years because of a change in doctrinal stance by their board, and one which they agreed with, plus they all dropped the label 'Baptist'. You have to make sure your church is supporting ministries of like faith and practice.
     
  17. superdave

    superdave New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have been reminded that calling KJVonlyism a heresy is illegal on this board, where is the fun in that!

    I would edit, but its too late.

    The Word Heresy above should be translated "divisive abomination to God" I must have consulted one of the modern versions of my train of thought that watered down the truth
     
  18. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You are learning, grasshopper.

    Wax on, wax off . . .
     
  19. Siegfried

    Siegfried Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is it appropriate to say that not allowing KJVonlyism to be called heresy is itself heresy?

    Of course I'm not saying that. Just asking.
     
  20. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah, just say "unorthodox doctrine" it is the political correct way to say it around here. I had to learn the hard way too.

    OTOH, all the correcting the moderators have given me, is making me a Kinder, gentler, more compassionate, debater.

    Enough about KJVOism, let's not hi-jack this thread. I am learning some things here that I didn't know.
     
Loading...