"the Christian emperors were as bad as the Pagan, for the Christian emperors were not Christians, nor were they members, as I believe, of a Christian Church. The Christian Church, and especially that Church of which we are still members, which has never defiled its garments, but which, never having had any alliance with the Church of Rome, has never needed to be reformed,—that Church under its different names, Paulitians, Novations, Albigenses, Lollards, Wyckliffites, Anabaptists, Baptists, has always suffered. It matters not what state, what Church, may have been dominant, whether it has been Christian or anti-Christian, the pure Church of Christ has always been the victim of persecution" —Charles Spurgeon, "Fire! Fire! Fire!"
"On this very spot where you now sit, long before there were any Lutherans or Calvinists, we read that, “three Anabaptists were burnt at the Butts at Newing-ton.” Our sires were Protestants before the Protestants! They were part of a long line of men who stood firm when the mass of the Church turned this way and that! They were, in fact, the most bold and thoroughgoing of all the adherents of the Apostolic and Scriptural Church and, therefore, they were persecuted by prelates and abhorred by priests. When I hear Ritualists talking of their ancient Church, I blush to think that Englishmen should claim kinship with the Roman Antichrist, whose yoke our fathers tore from off their necks! The pedigree of every Anglican priest must, of necessity, have flowed through the Dead Sea of Popery. Our limpid streamlet runs not through that slough of filthiness, but comes down pure from earliest ages! Our doctrines and ordinances remain as they were delivered unto us by our Lord! Neither have we desired to add the traditions of men to them.
. . . .
By your sires who were drowned by the hundreds for refusing homage to a superstitious rite, men who neither feared Luther nor the Pope, and were hated of all men and even by Reformers because they occupied a standpoint still bolder, clearer, and more advanced than all others" —Charles Spurgeon, "The Unbroken Line"
Where is the IFB Sytematic Theology?
Discussion in 'Fundamental Baptist Forum' started by Luke2427, Nov 15, 2011.
Page 2 of 18
-
-
http://nbbi.ca/
They are non=denominational and independent and fundamental. They don't call themselves Baptist.
Our church doesn't call ourselves Baptist by denomination, but by faith. We don't belong to a denomination but our befiefs and practices are Baptist in heritage and doctrine. This church is very similiar to the SBC church I grew up in down south 50 years ago.
All IFB are not the same. In my area there are 4 IFB churches. Two with NBBI grads as pastors and one with a Pensacola Bible College grad as pastor. All three of these are good churches with sound doctrine.
The fourth church in our area has a Hyles Anderson grad as it's pastor. And he is the typical tyrantical man-o-god. Very legalistic. The members kids have to attend their school, the members have to prove they are titheing 10% (they have a credit union to help keep up with this). you have to go to every service for 6 months to apply to be a member, and then you have to spend the next six months in a new members class before you are accepted. (That's one whole year you to spend for the sole purpose of proving that you are really saved). They even have a "give it all Sunday" once a year where every member is required to give every penney that comes into the household that week to the church. If a woman wears pants she is asked to leave. If a man has long hair or tatoos he is asked to get a haircut or cover his tatoos or leave. And dont even think about body peircings!!!!!
This is the kind of IFB church that gives IFB a bad name, but it is not the majority of churches. It is a trend in IFB circles to start your own Bible College. I think that if you checked you would find that the little schools that are legalistic have some kind of tie to Hyles Anderson, either directly or by graduates from there.
SBC has some issues with female pastors and gay membership. We all have some bad doctrines that have crept in, but don't label all churches within a group as bad because of a few.
Or worse, don't proclaim all IFB churches as cults and heretical, and theives of doctrine.
John -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
And as long as I'm on it, there are Baptist groups that people lump together with us that are clearly not IFB, either by history or doctrine. Those include the Freewill Baptists, the Missionary Baptists, etc. -
It is PHILOSOPHY not PERSONS that I count the enemy.
I count the IFB philosophy which I have encountered in my life and which most members of BB attest that they have encountered in their lives- I count that to be one of my enemies.
I count it MY enemy because I think it is the enemy of Christ.
But that there are some good IFB's who do not employ these heretical viewpoints is without question.
I count them my brothers in Christ.
I suppose at this point you will say, "So where have I espoused heresy in all of our exchanges?"
And then we will go on the merry go round again... -
You are my brother in Christ and it is time we both acknowledge such.
As far as IFB, read my post #22. That's all I can tell you about my church.
John -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Many Waldensians also baptized only believers.
Steve -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Many Waldensians also baptized only believers.
Steve -
I don't know what the fascination and obsession is in ripping up IFB people. THAT is something I would love to have the answer to. -
Just sayin'. -
Dr. John R. Rice said it about the same way, as I recall. -
-
and that we CANNOT claim "Apostolic" succression back to the Apostles as being the First baptists, as catholics do for their papacy? -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Actually, all that matters is that the Bible teaches Believers' baptism by immersion. I only mentioned the Petrobusians as a point of interest.
Whether the practice of Believers' Baptism was lost for a period of time or whether it continued down the ages is an interesting question, but not an important one.
Steve -
-
I think our primary task is to preach truth; not expose error.
But exposing error that blinds minds from truth is very important as well. It is largely neglected today in our religious culture, imo. Our pulpits are very "wormy" here.
Because it is largely neglected, the few of us who believe it ought to be done have to do more of it because we have little help.
We see this on bb.
I don't think I'd have to be so aggressive if more right thinking people believed in demolishing arguments and EVERY pretense that sets itself up against the knowledge of God on here. (II Corinthians 10:5)
I think EVERY ONE of us ought to be demolishing the idea that God does not always know all there is to ever know about everything at all times.
I think EVERY ONE of us ought to be demolishing the idea that the King James translation is inerrant and infallible.
I think EVERY ONE of us ought to be demolishing the idea that it is not necessary to realize, yield to and confess the fact that Jesus Christ is LORD for salvation (This IS repentance, This IS faith).
I think EVERY ONE of us ought to be demolishing the idea that God speaks to people apart from Scripture and that these people do not need the Historic Christian Faith for anything.
I think EVERY ONE of us ought to be demolishing the flawed hermeneutic that leads people to believe, and worse to preach, that things are sin and wrong which the Bible does not condemn- because this same hermeneutic is what gives rise to all kinds of heresy.
And the list goes on... -
Not needing the historic Christian faith for anything...well, that's actually a separate issue from the one about "apart from Scripture."
On the other hand, since you're obviously thinking about this from a hyper-fundamental IFB point of view, you have a point: Some hyper-IFBs do decide that skirt length and tithing is more important than God's love for sinners.
-
Scripture affirms this as I'm sure you know. -
Just a caution: when all you ever do is focus on demolishing, it becomes easy to miss the parts that should be left.
If I were to put it another way: When it comes to communication, most of your wording is "negative" ("demolish" is a negative connotation, for example); very rarely do we see positive. That kind of mentality breeds more negativity, until all you're doing is thinking about the negative aspects, and becoming a negative person. I'm not saying that's happening to you; just cautioning so that it doesn't. -
It's that simple.
Being right biblically both doctrinally and methodologically is a lot more important to me than whether or not I am accepted.
Wesley said, "Law to the proud- grace to the humble." That's the biblical pattern.
When I say, "I think you are dead wrong on this and I wish you'd reconsider," and they say, "You may be right. Let me tell you why I think the way I think and you critique it," that's humility. We address that kind of attitude with grace.
When they say, "I don't NEED any body to help me interpret the Bible- not YOU, not the Historic Christian Church- not anybody!! God speaks to me!"
That is arrogance and it ought to be condemned- not coddled, like you would have Christians do.
When you build before you demolish what is there- you are simply building a good house on a terrible foundation- and your effort is wasted.
You really, really, really ought to pause and consider that, Don. You really should.
Where is being negative condemned in Scripture?
The prophets were a negative bunch, weren't they?
The Apostles were, too.
And Jesus was forever saying, "Your thinking is dead wrong on this."
That's what I am doing on bb. And it is what God commands you to do, too.
This idea that building is good and demolition is not as good is cultural- not biblical. It is a fad in this tolerance obsessed culture in which you and I were raised.
This has subconsciously driven the way you think about this. And it has done the same to most of us in this culture.
People who are willing to stop and question that thinking and submit it to biblical scrutiny, imo, will leave it for the glory of God.
Page 2 of 18