Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

coc333

Is the IFB the only true church?

Recommended Posts

Could someone please clarify your beliefs? I notice that you list several "false" religions. I am not disputing that most of the religions you list are in fact false; clearly I and the Bible refutes your idea of the church of Christ being a false religion.

But, to the point, do you believe that the IFB is the only true church? If not, what are some other true churches/religions?

I thank all who provide information on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only one true religion - Biblical Christianity.

Again, your church of Christ cult is not the "church of Christ" spoken of in the NT. That is a bait and switch tactic - oh, we use the same term as NT believers, therefore we must be the ones they were talking about...

Independant Fundamental Baptists are the closest Biblically to the NT church. There are other denominations that teach the right way of salvation (which is what would mark something as Christian or not), but they are off on many secondary matters. IFB's are the only ones that teach what is referred to as "Baptist Distinctives." I do not have time to list them, but you could do a search on these boards for them. All are clearly taught in the Word of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


There is only one true religion - Biblical Christianity.


Again, your church of Christ cult is not the "church of Christ" spoken of in the NT. That is a bait and switch tactic - oh, we use the same term as NT believers, therefore we must be the ones they were talking about...


Independant Fundamental Baptists are the closest Biblically to the NT church. There are other denominations that teach the right way of salvation (which is what would mark something as Christian or not), but they are off on many secondary matters. IFB's are the only ones that teach what is referred to as "Baptist Distinctives." I do not have time to list them, but you could do a search on these boards for them. All are clearly taught in the Word of God.




Thank you Jerry for the information. I will have to do some more research on the IFB. I have studied the Baptist in general but not the IFB.


As to your attack on the Lord's church: I certainly can not stop you from doing so but repeating your false accusations will not make them any more correct than the first time that you made them. Interresting that I can find the church of Christ in the Bible and yet I read nothing of the Baptist church in general nor the IFB specifically.


I am curious. You said that the IFB is the closest to the Lord's church in the Bible; that would indicate that you believe that the IFB is different than the Lord's church found in the Bible. 1. Could you tell me how you are different (in your view) 2. If it is different then why not correct those differences? 3. If IFB is closest and yet different, are you saying that the Lord's church no longer exist?


Thank you again for your answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only true church depends on their relationship with God, how they view salvation and such... And I believe the belief in some IFB churches come very close to it or at least line up with the bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can know for certain that the coC is not the true church, for it was not founded until Alexander Campbell founded it in the 1800's. Plus we know that water baptism does not remit sin and give a person salvation. For salvation is a free gift, not of ones self, not by works, only thanks to God's mercy thru faith in Jesus Christ.

That said, Mr. Campbell himself helps establish the Baptist as the one true church.


The Testimony Of Alexander Campbell
As To The History Of Baptist Churches
By Alexander Campbell


[EDITOR'S NOTE: This article by Mr. Alexander Campbell (1788-1866), the instigator of Campbellism and founder of the Campbellite Church, is taken from the book entitled, "Campbell - Walker Debate." This debate was held in 1820, a few years prior to Mr. Campbell's complete departure from the Faith. It is to be regretted that Mr. Campbell thus departed from the Faith but we are happy that he left this printed testimony as to the history of Baptists.

The portion of the book from which this article is taken, was added to the printed debate by Mr. Campbell, in reply to a Mr. Ralston, a Presbyterian, who had made some erroneous statements as to Baptist history. This is a portion of Mr. Campbell's reply to Mr. Ralston, the purpose of which was to show how ignorant Mr. Ralston was of the history of the Baptists.]

While the Protestant church must date its origin from the nineteenth of April 1529 - that memorable day on which fourteen cities of Germany PROTESTED against a decree of the Diet of Spires, which met in the March preceding; while the Presbyterian Church must date its origin from the autumn of 1537, the year in which John Calvin published his Confession of Faith, had a PUBLIC DEBATE with Peter Caroli, and constituted a church in Geneva: whilst the Scotch Presbyterians must date their origin from the arrival of John Knox in Scotland from Geneva, who arriving there Anno Domini 1558, and becoming a champion in the cause of Presbyterianism, was denominated the "Scotch Apostle John Knox": while the English Presbyterians must date their origin from November 20, 1572, "when a small Presbyterian church was erected at Wandsworth, a village near London: " whilst the Seceders must date their origin from August, 1733, when Messrs. E. Erskine, W. Wilson, A. Moncrief, and J. Fisher, were deposed and excluded from the communion of the Presbyterian church, and became the founders of a new sect: while the Unionists or Scotch Burghers, must date their origin from the year 1747: the Methodists from John Wesley, 1729: the Quakers from George Fox, 1655: -I say, while all these sects are of recent origin, not one of them yet 300 years old -not one of them able to furnish a MODEL of their peculiarities, or antiquity, greater than I have mentioned, the Baptists can trace their origin to apostolic times, and produce unequivocal testimonies of their existence in every century down to the present time; and the MODEL of their peculiarities the Scriptures themselves afford, as far as the name BAPTIST is concerned.

It must be acknowledged that each sect is distinguished by some peculiarity which is generally expressed in the name of it. The history of a sect is the history of a people adhering to one general system of peculiarities, which distinguishes them from all others. The date of the origin of a sect must, then, be the date of the origin of its grand peculiarities. Were we to adopt any other method we should be obliged to describe sects by that which is not peculiar to them, which would be impossible, for all sects would then be alike. The grand peculiarity, from which the Baptists have found their name, is found in the Scriptures as a part of Christianity, and is simply this -To require faith or repentance, as previous to Baptism; and to immerse the subject professing faith and repentance in water, in the name, or into the name of the Father, Son, and

Holy Ghost.
This is the peculiarity from which Baptists have their name; all that believe and practice in this way, are Baptists; and all that do not are not Baptists. I now proceed to show that the Baptists have existed in every century from the Christian era to the present day.

THE FIRST CHURCH
First Century, Anno Domini 33, we read, in a well attested history, of a large Baptist church which was formed and exhibited as a GRAND MODEL, by the immediate agency of Pentecost, 3000 souls were illumined, led to repentance, converted, baptized, and added to the church. The history of this church, and of many others like it, is clearly and forcibly written by an excellent writer, styled Luke the Physician. This Luke is the oldest ecclesiastical writer in the world. He writes a history of the Christian Church for little better than thirty years. See his Treatise styled "Acts of the Apostles," chapter 2:41-47, "They that gladly received his word were baptized: and the SAME day there were added unto them about 3000 souls: and they continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers-praising God, and the Lord added daily to them such as should be saved," or such as were saved.
The members, then, of the first Christian church ever planted on earth, gladly received the word BEFORE they were baptized, and upon the SAME day of their baptism were added to the church; and thence forward CONTINUED in the above practices. It is then incontrovertibly evident, that the FIRST Christian church planted on earth was, in respect of baptism, as now distinguished, a BAPTIST CHURCH; or a church composed of baptized believers. It is true, it is not called by Luke, a Baptist church, for all the churches were imitators of this first church, and to have called it a Baptist church would have implied that there was a Pedo-baptist church too, which was a thing unknown in the apostolic age, as all ancient historians declare.

THE SECOND CHURCH
The second church that was planted was at Samaria" Philip went down into Samaria and preached Christ into them. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake-and there was GREAT JOY in the city. WHEN (not before) they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were BAPTIZED, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN." The second church planted on earth was also composed of men and women who professed faith before baptism; consequently, a Baptist church. Acts 8:5-13.

THE THIRD CHURCH
The third church of note, and in order of time, was the church of Caesaria, a church interesting to us, inasmuch, as it was a Gentile church, or a Gentile people composed it. This church was evidently a Baptist church - "while Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost FELL ON ALL THEM WHICH HEARD THE WORD-Then said Peter, can any man forbid WATER, that those should not be baptized, seeing THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. " Acts 10:44 to the close.

To these I might add all the churches in the New Testament; for there is something said of the baptism of most of them. Particularly something said of the church at Philippi, at Corinth, at Rome, at Ephesus, at Colosse, and of the churches of Galatia, with regard to their baptism. Of all of these cities and regions, it might be said, as was said of the Corinthians, viz. "many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized. " This is the SACRED ORDER of these three words: first, to hear; second, to believe, and third, to be baptized.
The testimonies of the holy oracles reach down to the close of the first century; and these, as has been observed, mention no other kind of churches than those composed of believers, baptized upon a profession of their faith, a fact which should perfectly satisfy the mind of every Christian upon this subject. But there has been a cloud of witnesses in every age attesting the same important truth, viz. that believers are the ONLY proper SUBJECTS and that immersion is the ONLY proper ACTION of baptism. The testimonies of God are the foundation on which our faith and practice rest. (In other spots throughout Mr. Campbell's reply to Mr. Ralston, we have such statements as the following:)

It would be imposing upon the reader, and an imputation of his understanding, to be more copious in furnishing documents to put to silence the ignorance of foolish men who would assert that the Baptist denomination grew out of the wild, fanatic, enthusiastic Anabaptists of Germany. That men professing Baptist principles have acted in many instances incorrectly, is a very common truth. That some individuals professing Baptist principles might have been in that, or any other insurrection, may be conceded, without at the same time yielding that the Baptists arose from the Anabaptists of Germany. As truly might it be said that the church of Christ in Jerusalem, planted A.D. 33, arose out of the Anabaptists in Germany in the sixteenth century-Yes, Mr. Ralston with equal truth and honesty might have said that all Christians originated from the Mohammedans, or Sicilians, as that the Baptists arose from the Anabaptists of Germany ....
Thus I have shown, that even in England, the Baptists have continued from the apostolic times to the present day, as also that there have been in every century advocates for Baptist principles ....

We cannot subscribe to the maxim which saith, "Ignorance is the mother of devotion," nor can we excuse that ignorance of history which caused Mr. Ralston to fix the origin of the Baptists at Munster. If his assertion did not proceed from ignorance, it must have proceeded from something worse. For it is the offspring of either ignorance or malevolence.

(To Mr. Alexander Campbell's contention as to Baptist history, we say "Amen and amen!")

Available in tract form, Tract #C-414, From: TABERNACLE BAPTIST CHURCH 1911 34th St., E. L. Bynum, Pastor P.O. Box 3100, Lubbock TX 79452

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


You find the phrase churches of Christ (not church of Christ) in the Bible, but do you allow the same room for the more commonly found church (and churches) if God in the NT?




church of Christ is not a proper name but is simply a term showing ownership. The church of Christ belongs to Christ. He is the one who built it (claims that it was built by Alexander Campbell notwithstanding) (Matt 16:18-19) and He is the Head of it (Eph 1:22-23).


church of God is another term that we find in the Bible. This shows that the church also belongs to God and there are other terms that could also be used. I would shy away from "church of God" simply for the fact that there is a denomination which uses the name. This is the very reason that I shy away from the term "pastor" which refers to one of the "elders" or "shepherds" or "overseers" because many in the denominational world has taken the term and used it to refer to the preacher.


A term can be scriptural and it not be wise to use it for the very reason stated above. I know of some who use the term "church of Christ" though they are not following the Bible. Max Lucado has been mentioned on this board; he does not stick with the Bible and yet he uses the term. I could name others also.


I am a Christian; I am a member of the church of Christ, added to it by the Lord (Acts 2:47) when I obeyed His will and submitted to Him (Matt 7:21; Heb 5:8-9; Rom 10:17; John 3:16; Luke 13:3-5; Rom 10:12; Acts 2:37-38). I did not earn my salvation in anyway by obeying but simply did that which was required of me. (Luke 17:10).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


The only true church depends on their relationship with God, how they view salvation and such... And I believe the belief in some IFB churches come very close to it or at least line up with the bible.




You also state that you believe that the IFB (some of them at least) "come very close to it or at least line up with the bible." I am curious where you think the IFB misses the mark. As asked on a previous post, where do you believe that the IFB is off? Why not correct those "misses?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


We can know for certain that the coC is not the true church, for it was not founded until Alexander Campbell founded it in the 1800's. Plus we know that water baptism does not remit sin and give a person salvation. For salvation is a free gift, not of ones self, not by works, only thanks to God's mercy thru faith in Jesus Christ.


That said, Mr. Campbell himself helps establish the Baptist as the one true church.




The Testimony Of Alexander Campbell

As To The History Of Baptist Churches

By Alexander Campbell



[EDITOR'S NOTE: This article by Mr. Alexander Campbell (1788-1866), the instigator of Campbellism and founder of the Campbellite Church, is taken from the book entitled, "Campbell - Walker Debate." This debate was held in 1820, a few years prior to Mr. Campbell's complete departure from the Faith. It is to be regretted that Mr. Campbell thus departed from the Faith but we are happy that he left this printed testimony as to the history of Baptists.


The portion of the book from which this article is taken, was added to the printed debate by Mr. Campbell, in reply to a Mr. Ralston, a Presbyterian, who had made some erroneous statements as to Baptist history. This is a portion of Mr. Campbell's reply to Mr. Ralston, the purpose of which was to show how ignorant Mr. Ralston was of the history of the Baptists.]


While the Protestant church must date its origin from the nineteenth of April 1529 - that memorable day on which fourteen cities of Germany PROTESTED against a decree of the Diet of Spires, which met in the March preceding; while the Presbyterian Church must date its origin from the autumn of 1537, the year in which John Calvin published his Confession of Faith, had a PUBLIC DEBATE with Peter Caroli, and constituted a church in Geneva: whilst the Scotch Presbyterians must date their origin from the arrival of John Knox in Scotland from Geneva, who arriving there Anno Domini 1558, and becoming a champion in the cause of Presbyterianism, was denominated the "Scotch Apostle John Knox": while the English Presbyterians must date their origin from November 20, 1572, "when a small Presbyterian church was erected at Wandsworth, a village near London: " whilst the Seceders must date their origin from August, 1733, when Messrs. E. Erskine, W. Wilson, A. Moncrief, and J. Fisher, were deposed and excluded from the communion of the Presbyterian church, and became the founders of a new sect: while the Unionists or Scotch Burghers, must date their origin from the year 1747: the Methodists from John Wesley, 1729: the Quakers from George Fox, 1655: -I say, while all these sects are of recent origin, not one of them yet 300 years old -not one of them able to furnish a MODEL of their peculiarities, or antiquity, greater than I have mentioned, the Baptists can trace their origin to apostolic times, and produce unequivocal testimonies of their existence in every century down to the present time; and the MODEL of their peculiarities the Scriptures themselves afford, as far as the name BAPTIST is concerned.


It must be acknowledged that each sect is distinguished by some peculiarity which is generally expressed in the name of it. The history of a sect is the history of a people adhering to one general system of peculiarities, which distinguishes them from all others. The date of the origin of a sect must, then, be the date of the origin of its grand peculiarities. Were we to adopt any other method we should be obliged to describe sects by that which is not peculiar to them, which would be impossible, for all sects would then be alike. The grand peculiarity, from which the Baptists have found their name, is found in the Scriptures as a part of Christianity, and is simply this -To require faith or repentance, as previous to Baptism; and to immerse the subject professing faith and repentance in water, in the name, or into the name of the Father, Son, and


Holy Ghost.

This is the peculiarity from which Baptists have their name; all that believe and practice in this way, are Baptists; and all that do not are not Baptists. I now proceed to show that the Baptists have existed in every century from the Christian era to the present day.


THE FIRST CHURCH

First Century, Anno Domini 33, we read, in a well attested history, of a large Baptist church which was formed and exhibited as a GRAND MODEL, by the immediate agency of Pentecost, 3000 souls were illumined, led to repentance, converted, baptized, and added to the church. The history of this church, and of many others like it, is clearly and forcibly written by an excellent writer, styled Luke the Physician. This Luke is the oldest ecclesiastical writer in the world. He writes a history of the Christian Church for little better than thirty years. See his Treatise styled "Acts of the Apostles," chapter 2:41-47, "They that gladly received his word were baptized: and the SAME day there were added unto them about 3000 souls: and they continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers-praising God, and the Lord added daily to them such as should be saved," or such as were saved.

The members, then, of the first Christian church ever planted on earth, gladly received the word BEFORE they were baptized, and upon the SAME day of their baptism were added to the church; and thence forward CONTINUED in the above practices. It is then incontrovertibly evident, that the FIRST Christian church planted on earth was, in respect of baptism, as now distinguished, a BAPTIST CHURCH; or a church composed of baptized believers. It is true, it is not called by Luke, a Baptist church, for all the churches were imitators of this first church, and to have called it a Baptist church would have implied that there was a Pedo-baptist church too, which was a thing unknown in the apostolic age, as all ancient historians declare.


THE SECOND CHURCH

The second church that was planted was at Samaria" Philip went down into Samaria and preached Christ into them. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake-and there was GREAT JOY in the city. WHEN (not before) they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were BAPTIZED, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN." The second church planted on earth was also composed of men and women who professed faith before baptism; consequently, a Baptist church. Acts 8:5-13.


THE THIRD CHURCH

The third church of note, and in order of time, was the church of Caesaria, a church interesting to us, inasmuch, as it was a Gentile church, or a Gentile people composed it. This church was evidently a Baptist church - "while Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost FELL ON ALL THEM WHICH HEARD THE WORD-Then said Peter, can any man forbid WATER, that those should not be baptized, seeing THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. " Acts 10:44 to the close.


To these I might add all the churches in the New Testament; for there is something said of the baptism of most of them. Particularly something said of the church at Philippi, at Corinth, at Rome, at Ephesus, at Colosse, and of the churches of Galatia, with regard to their baptism. Of all of these cities and regions, it might be said, as was said of the Corinthians, viz. "many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized. " This is the SACRED ORDER of these three words: first, to hear; second, to believe, and third, to be baptized.

The testimonies of the holy oracles reach down to the close of the first century; and these, as has been observed, mention no other kind of churches than those composed of believers, baptized upon a profession of their faith, a fact which should perfectly satisfy the mind of every Christian upon this subject. But there has been a cloud of witnesses in every age attesting the same important truth, viz. that believers are the ONLY proper SUBJECTS and that immersion is the ONLY proper ACTION of baptism. The testimonies of God are the foundation on which our faith and practice rest. (In other spots throughout Mr. Campbell's reply to Mr. Ralston, we have such statements as the following:)


It would be imposing upon the reader, and an imputation of his understanding, to be more copious in furnishing documents to put to silence the ignorance of foolish men who would assert that the Baptist denomination grew out of the wild, fanatic, enthusiastic Anabaptists of Germany. That men professing Baptist principles have acted in many instances incorrectly, is a very common truth. That some individuals professing Baptist principles might have been in that, or any other insurrection, may be conceded, without at the same time yielding that the Baptists arose from the Anabaptists of Germany. As truly might it be said that the church of Christ in Jerusalem, planted A.D. 33, arose out of the Anabaptists in Germany in the sixteenth century-Yes, Mr. Ralston with equal truth and honesty might have said that all Christians originated from the Mohammedans, or Sicilians, as that the Baptists arose from the Anabaptists of Germany ....

Thus I have shown, that even in England, the Baptists have continued from the apostolic times to the present day, as also that there have been in every century advocates for Baptist principles ....


We cannot subscribe to the maxim which saith, "Ignorance is the mother of devotion," nor can we excuse that ignorance of history which caused Mr. Ralston to fix the origin of the Baptists at Munster. If his assertion did not proceed from ignorance, it must have proceeded from something worse. For it is the offspring of either ignorance or malevolence.


(To Mr. Alexander Campbell's contention as to Baptist history, we say "Amen and amen!")


Available in tract form, Tract #C-414, From: TABERNACLE BAPTIST CHURCH 1911 34th St., E. L. Bynum, Pastor P.O. Box 3100, Lubbock TX 79452




Jerry, you should study church history prior to claiming that you can know that the church of Christ is not the church of Christ due to, as you stated, "Alexander Campbell founded the church of Christ." Alexander did not found the church of Christ in the 1st century or any other century. Obviously Mr. Campbell was not yet born when Christ established His church (Matt 16:18-19; Acts 2 et. al.). But, we must take note that Mr. Campbell was not even in the US when others were working on restoring the church. Barton W. Stone and others were here in the US working on these efforts prior to Alexander or his father ever coming to the use. There were others a long time prior to Mr. Stone as well and I can give you further material should you desire for it.


Thank you for the information on what Alexandre Campbell wrote previously; I will copy it and save it to my library and study it; that being said, I really don't care what Mr. Campbell might have said previously. I am not a follower of Mr. Campbell and if he should have been in error on this at one time then that is just the way it is. I used to believe many things that were in error but have since learned the truth through study of my own and the teaching efforts of others. Of course, I continue to study and learn every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the "I" in "IFB" stands for Independent there is no way to definitively answer your question on behalf of all the thousands of independents. As they are all independent with no central point of ecclesiastical control or setting of doctrine, they each look only to the Scriptures for their direction. The minor variations that others have referred to I would suspect encompass small differences between each pastor's interpretation of certain less clear portions of the Bible. Also, IFB is not a denomination but was rather a movement of like minded independent preachers who would call themselves Baptist as they proudly adhere to "Baptist distinctives" that have survived through the ages (originating in Scripture) until the present day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



You also state that you believe that the IFB (some of them at least) "come very close to it or at least line up with the bible." I am curious where you think the IFB misses the mark. As asked on a previous post, where do you believe that the IFB is off? Why not correct those "misses?"


what he said:


Since the "I" in "IFB" stands for Independent there is no way to definitively answer your question on behalf of all the thousands of independents. As they are all independent with no central point of ecclesiastical control or setting of doctrine, they each look only to the Scriptures for their direction. The minor variations that others have referred to I would suspect encompass small differences between each pastor's interpretation of certain less clear portions of the Bible. Also, IFB is not a denomination but was rather a movement of like minded independent preachers who would call themselves Baptist as they proudly adhere to "Baptist distinctives" that have survived through the ages (originating in Scripture) until the present day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Jerry, you should study church history prior to claiming that you can know that the church of Christ is not the church of Christ due to, as you stated, "Alexander Campbell founded the church of Christ." Alexander did not found the church of Christ in the 1st century or any other century. Obviously Mr. Campbell was not yet born when Christ established His church (Matt 16:18-19; Acts 2 et. al.). But, we must take note that Mr. Campbell was not even in the US when others were working on restoring the church. Barton W. Stone and others were here in the US working on these efforts prior to Alexander or his father ever coming to the use. There were others a long time prior to Mr. Stone as well and I can give you further material should you desire for it.

Thank you for the information on what Alexandre Campbell wrote previously; I will copy it and save it to my library and study it; that being said, I really don't care what Mr. Campbell might have said previously. I am not a follower of Mr. Campbell and if he should have been in error on this at one time then that is just the way it is. I used to believe many things that were in error but have since learned the truth through study of my own and the teaching efforts of others. Of course, I continue to study and learn every day.


I have, and the coc has nothing what so ever to do with Jesus, it does not even teach people the proper path to the Father.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I have, and the coc has nothing what so ever to do with Jesus, it does not even teach people the proper path to the Father.


If you have studied church history, you should not make such clearly false statements.

I don't know who you have spoken with from the church of Christ but last time I checked we teach as the Bible does that Jesus is the way the truth and the life and that it is only through Him that we are able to go to the Father. (John 14:6).

We must be in Christ since that is where all spiritual blessings are (Eph 1:3) but how do we get into Christ? The Bible says that we are baptized into Him (Gal 3:27)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



If you have studied church history, you should not make such clearly false statements.

I don't know who you have spoken with from the church of Christ but last time I checked we teach as the Bible does that Jesus is the way the truth and the life and that it is only through Him that we are able to go to the Father. (John 14:6).

We must be in Christ since that is where all spiritual blessings are (Eph 1:3) but how do we get into Christ? The Bible says that we are baptized into Him (Gal 3:27)


Sorry, I've made not false statement.

Yes, I know well that the coc depends on baptism, and not on Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would shy away from "church of God" simply for the fact that there is a denomination which uses the name.


Wonder why you can't be consistent? You won't use the term "church of God" because it is the name of a denomination - but you will use the term "church of Christ", which is the name of your denomination/cult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Wonder why you can't be consistent? You won't use the term "church of God" because it is the name of a denomination - but you will use the term "church of Christ", which is the name of your denomination/cult.


I am not being inconsistent. The fact that you choose to insist that I belong to a cult/denomination does not make it so. You are incorrect and I have repeatedly shown that to be the case.

Let's be clear on what I said, I stated that I shy away from the term not that I do not ever use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The history and doctrine of the "denomination" entitled the "church of Christ" started by Campbell shows that it is a cult. It teaches another gospel - one of works to be saved and works for salvation to be maintained. That makes it a cult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I am not being inconsistent. The fact that you choose to insist that I belong to a cult/denomination does not make it so. You are incorrect and I have repeatedly shown that to be the case.

Let's be clear on what I said, I stated that I shy away from the term not that I do not ever use it.


The Bible makes it so, why? Becasue as I said before, coc teachings do not match the teachings within the Holy Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello CoC333, what is it that you really want to know exactly? I used to be CoC. Are you the "united", "non-instrumental", or "Christian Church" branch of CoC? (I suppose there could be others, these are just the ones I'm aware of.) To answer one of your questions in your OP directly, IFB's do not believe that they are the only saved people (or church) on the planet; though, I have heard it said that at least some CoC churches teach such about the CoC church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Sorry, I've made not false statement.

Yes, I know well that the coc depends on baptism, and not on Christ.


This statement is why I am no longer CoC. We did not know that until much later when we learned more about their doctrine. (his parents were CoC)
The above statement I highlighted in pink is a grave error, and many people will end up in hell because of the false teaching that baptism saves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone please clarify your beliefs? I notice that you list several "false" religions. I am not disputing that most of the religions you list are in fact false; clearly I and the Bible refutes your idea of the church of Christ being a false religion.


But, to the point, do you believe that the IFB is the only true church? If not, what are some other true churches/religions?


I thank all who provide information on this.


We keep the Bible as our instruction manual, we do not go away from the Bible or teach anything that is not in the Bible. The only word we use that is not in the Bible is Rapture, but that means a snatching or taking away. So to answer your question, I would say anyone who follows the Bible and does not add or take away will be doing what the true church did as we do. :twocents:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We keep the Bible as our instruction manual, we do not go away from the Bible or teach anything that is not in the Bible. The only word we use that is not in the Bible is Rapture, but that means a snatching or taking away. So to answer your question, I would say anyone who follows the Bible and does not add or take away will be doing what the true church did as we do. :twocents:


By "we" are you meaning your IFB church or are you implying all IFB churches? I ask this because I know there is a growing trend of IFB churches changing course, watering down, and becoming more "mainstream". I've seen this in my own area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may break in here, I have an observation regarding Independent Baptists. First, they couldn't have been around at Pentecost, because Baptists don't speak in tongues! Second, where are all the Baptist documents and writings prior to the 16th century?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...