The future of the Independent Baptist movement? What do we need to address?

What? Me? Offended? Not at all. If you're a gunslinger, you can't be afraid of a few bullets. BTW, I am pleased to know that you think I'm hilarious--I'm quite often amused at myself.

 

I especially like the comment on church planting.

 

If one has to get Dr. before his name to look good before others then ego is involved.

Billy Graham was interviewed a few years ago about what he would do different and one of those was to get more education. A man who has been doing evangelism most of his life would disagree with you.

Also, think about how many years the disciples were with the master being trained by him.

 

It is not just about education or sweat that wins people to Christ. It is wisdom that wins people. Not ignorance coupled with sweat or laziness and education. A master is skilled at what he does. Not one craftsman has ever been the best at what he does without learning from those who have gone before him. So it is with evangelism and missions. To say we cannot learn from others, is to say we can do a better job and the same God who used those who have gone before us giving them wisdom is not the same wisdom we need. So in our arrogance we go without wisdom and lose much valuable time and energy often even damaging relationships because of our stupidity.

 

Re: Op

Regarding the original post

Interesting thread but personally I don’t agree with most of the info given by Spoudazo. If I were counseling Spou, may I call you Spou? Thank you. I would first ask why it is you have been in so many Baptist churches? “so many that you have been at” with this comment I would need some back ground information does your job move you, do you travel a great deal or is it that you cannot discern spiritual leadership and have made mistakes (which we all have)?

While you attack one pastor for not having the answers to a question that you posed what would you have done had he reversed the question and asked you about the hypostatic union, Soteriology, Anthropology, Ecclesiology, Theology proper, historic theology, practical theology, propitiation of sin, justification etc. would you have been able to answer his questions? While the KJV – MV issue is real most pastors that I fellowship with do not have the time to study the issue in depth but that is not because they don’t study but because they do study they don’t have time for those types of studies. It is not a priority on their time schedule.

I also find it interesting that a church is unmerciful because of your grandmother could not sing in the choir because several people you “think deacons” wanted her out of the choir and but you are not unmerciful in your critique of music in point #5.

Here is my analysis of your situation Spoudazo, you need to go and pastor for a couple of years in a small work and find out how difficult it is to balance your five points. Apart from prayer which should be a constant you will find that truth is often treated as unmerciful, presentation of truth can only be delivered at a certain level of education which is based on the mean of the congregation and the education of the pastor and style of music has much to do with culture and availability. I pastored for 12 years with out having a piano player.

I am sure that anyone can draw from experience and paint negative pictures as I have just done with you. But that does not mean my picture of you is correct, I would bet it is not. I would also bet that your picture of the IFB movement is not correct either.

Men who strive to do great things through God’s leadership must also make mistakes along the way sometimes they are big and sometimes they are small but aren’t we glad that Philippians 1:6 is still in scripture.

I apologize for making you angry in order to get my point across.

thjplgvp

 

What makes a man?

Yeah and look at Billy Graham! You dare use Billy as an example to a Fundamentalist? Some question whether Billy is close to embracing universalism. However, Billy was a great preacher if you listen to his early sermons. His preaching is nothing today compared to his former preaching even considering the deteriorating effects of aging.

Education doesn't make the preacher although a good man will utilize education to benefit. Having spent most of my life in some aspect of academia, I have met many educated fools without an ounce of sense in their heads. I place more value on a man's wisdom, integrity and character than his education which is secondary.


So, how long were the disciples with Christ? Long enough for a doctorate?

 

yes gb, I have thought about that. It is THREE years. And Jesus sent them out to minister BEFORE the end of those three years.

As I said, Im not against education. A good 4-year Bible college ought to be enough to send a man out into ministry in order to get him into a church where he can be trained "hands-on".

I think more pastors need to do more training of the laymen and college-age people in their churches, so that those people are better equipped to go out there and start new churches.

Ya'all are acting like I said forget college.......that's not what I said at all. Just that there has to be a reasonable end in sight.

 

My hubby and I went to MBBC also, Squire. :thumbs: '89 to '94

 

we might have been there at almost the same times.......

I was there for the last two years of Doc Cedarholm still having an office in Old Main. Oh what a neat sight it was to see him sitting behind that big old desk, reading a book with just the top of his head showing! He kept those office doors open most of the time back then so he could see us students walking around.

I was sad when he and Mrs. C. moved down to Florida.

(sorry, off topic! )

 

no offense Bapmom but the education in baptist history is extremely important. i've been reading a great book by james bellar- the coming destruction of the baptist people and it explains some of the enemies of independent baptists. one enemy in particular is reformed catholics it's not surprising that they are an enemy but how they are accomplishing their goal. they are severining our roots how are baptists in general, not only pastors but congregations as well, to know where they are headed if they don't know where they have come from. reformed catholics are doing a great job of ruining our heritage through christian education and publishers. we need to get on the ball and not let our families forget about shubal stearns, obadiah holmes, anne hutchinson, and roger williams some real baptist heroes

i challenge everyone reading this to take poll on baptists and see how many can name three, just three famous baptist not including charles spurgeon. no baptist that i have asked can name three.

 

One of the best posts I've seen on this subject.

 

IMO Some baptists are willingly ignorant of baptist history because they don't want to find out that their baptist heritage includes many people that did not agree with their particular preferences. Also many do not want to face the fact that most of the historically significant baptists were calvinists.

 

even if some pre-american and early american famous baptists were calvinists, and i don't believe that many were, the majority weren't. calvin's worldview has many problems in it. i.e. he's a reformed catholic. he revived augustinianism, wanted the church-state marriage, infant baptism was compulsory, sacrements are a means to grace, the events of revelation are figurative.

i know that many baptists agree with calvin's 5 points, but saying that most historically significant baptists were calvinists, i don't agree. just a side point- most 5 point or hyper-calvinists i know are not involved in soulwinning but what i know of the baptists in history is a quote from the moravian leader Elder Solle he said " mr. samuel harris, a well known Baptist of virginia, visited here to acquaint himself with our doctrine and constitution and to talk with us...at this time the Baptists are the only ones in the country who go far and wide preaching and caring for souls"

now that quote may mean something or it may not, but the fact still must be faced, baptist history is being erased by a lack of teaching and also by reformed catholic recronstructionists.

 

I'm sure there must have been some historically significant baptists that were not calvinists, but I can't think of any. Can you give me some names and short backgrounds?

 

Acctually the majority were Calvinists. Almost all of the early American church planting efforts were done by Calvinistic Baptists. As J.D. said name some historically significant baptists that were not clavinists.

I am not sure all of what you said is correct, but even if it is, it is irrelevent since baptist clavinists are calvinistic in their soteriology only.

This shoud not become a disccusion on Calvinism, but this is a mis-notion. Most five point Calvinists are pasionatly evangelistic and all the ones I know are commited to the Great Commission.

History is history and can not be eraesed. And what on earth is a "reformed catholic reconstructionist"?

 

RE:savethebaptists

Savethebaptists

I agree that Baptist history is important. I believe Baptist mom is responding to a general and subtle insinuation found in much of the membership on this board that if one is IFB then that one, bless his soul, is just an ignorant saved person who is probably uneducated and will probably never understand the real issues in Christianity. Not all but a few will openly attack our preachers of past and present as demagogues never taking the time to truly realize that these men were loved by a great many and that they believed that God was in charge of their lives and their respective ministry’s and led accordingly. They were men who were not bound by political word correctness but called changes in cultural that were leading folks away from simple worship, what they were. They did not use the power of persuasion ‘ladies lets be distinctly female and men lets be distinctly male’ instead they said women don’t wear pants and men don’t wear long hair. You seldom had to wonder where they stood on an issue they stated their position clearly and with force. They did not quote historians, philosophers, Barna, mv’s etc. from their pulpits they quoted the bible. Generally speaking they did not praise men but praised God’s great hand working in the lives of men. Our heritage is without price and very much worth knowing and studying.

Most IFBer’s understand that Baptist’s did not begin with Roger Williams or John Owen and that true Baptists carry their pedigree from the time of Christ not in a succession of visible churches but in a line of particulars that branded us as a group of scripture believing, scripture obeying, scripture proclaiming local congregations throughout New Testament times.

We take baptism by emersion and the remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice, as seen in our observance of the Lord’s Supper, very seriously and will separate from anyone who does not hold to salvation by grace through faith. We do not believe that Calvanist’s are Baptist’s they are reformers and we do not believe Armenianism is Baptist doctrine.

We hold to the view that God’s call to serve him is made irregardless of education, station in life, physical or mental abilities or disabilities, nationality or ethnic group.

The BB is a great place for the exchange of idea’s and learn how to express yourself in words, the men and women here will challenge you to debate almost everything, therefore it would be wise to know exactly where you stand on issues and you quickly learn when to venture forth and when to merely observe which is why I waited so long to post this reply. :smilewinkgrin:

There is an old saying “people who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

 

So someone who doesn't believe this is not a true Baptist? I don't buy the trail of blood theory. Their certainly have been those who practiced baptistic prinicples, but they were certainly not exactly like we are today. The fact is that early baptist's were calvinistic, and I would contend that because I believe the doctrines of grace to be biblical that, that "calvinistic baptists" can trace their pedigree back to the NT chruch.

What on earth is "emersion"? I have heard of immersion but not "emersion"

 

4Hisglory,

I know of a fellow who served on the same board as you are with who went to western Europe as a missionary. He was a calvinist through and through. His website was devoted almost exclusively to Reformed Theological links. At least until his board found out.
This dude is now back in the states because of his calvinism. He went off the deep end I suppose?
BTW, I was interested in applying to the board your with and that is when by accident I discovered this fellow and a couple of his cohorts and found out they were stridently calvinistic in their theology.
I know some other men on this board who are not at all calvinistic who are with the same board you are.
So, who do I believe when I talk to the HQ of your board. They seem to indicate that they don't tolerate calvinistically inclined missionaries yet your seem to be pretty upfront in your theological position.
Is there plenty of room in your board's doctrinal stance to openly allow those of a reformed inclination to be one of their missionaries?
Or did you downplay your theological leanings in candidate seminar?
I'm only asking because I do like the board your apart of but it just seems to me like either the board or their missionaries are misleading their supporters when it comes to the acceptance of calvinistic leaning brethren into their fold?
IF you went with your board and fully disclosed your theological position which is being a calvinists then bravo for you.
IF you kept it on the down low and espoused dispensational theology to say what the powers that be wanted to hear in order to get accepted with the board then it is there we must part ways.
Time and time again calvinist do this in churches and in missions. I just don't think it is that cool.
I'm assuming you did give full disclosure though. I give you benefit of the doubt.
Shoot for all I know your mission board is more calvinistic than they let on to their supporters I don't know?
I honestly think that the board you are with is one of the best most balanced baptist mission agencies out there. I'm just not that clear on their position regarding the acceptance of missionaries who are calvinists. Either the board is sending mixxed messages or the missionaries aren't laying all their theological cards on the table? Enlighten me? Privately if you wish?
BTW, I'm not a calvinist basher. I would head that way before I would to run to the other direction. I'm just curious about how your board handles these sort of things?