New Name for IFBs

[Anon]

I'm sure it is different in certain areas of the country, but the people in my city do not categorize us by the label 'Fundamentalist", they more know us by what they have seen from our members. It is like the saying goes, actions speak louder than words. Our community is watching our actions not what we call ourself. If we throw out fundamental, why are we keeping Baptist?

Did not "Baptist" come before "Fundamental"?

As far as I thought, "Fundamental" came on later as Baptists seem to get more liberal..."Fundamental" was sort of the "Hyles" (etc) way of saying "We are Old Fashioned". Which was fine then...but due to the current bad connotation of "Fundamentalists" in our country, I'm not so sure its wise to hold onto the name as Baptists. I don't think throwing out that word has anything to do with being Baptist, or Independent Baptist.

I consider myself Independent Baptist...I no longer consider myself Independent Fundamental Baptist.....anyway....under what authority do we believe we are "Fundamental"? Whose "Fundamentals" are we following? The President's of a college? The pastor of an IFB megachurch? The Sword of the Lord? No, we are independent of all that...we follow the BIBLE...we follow God. We are under our local pastor, whom we follow as he follows Christ.

As a disclaimer, I speak for myself and not my husband, although I imagine he prefers the word "Independent" to "Fundamental"...but I do not know if he would completely throw it out or not. Nobody can deny the word has a terrible reputation these days though.

(Oh good...just asked my husband and he agrees...he considers himself a "Biblicist" and he is "Independent Baptist"...he does not like the word "Fundamental" any longer either. Glad I was not speaking apart from him this time.)

[Seth Doty]

What would be a more effective word to use by today's Independent Baptists to convey the same meaning, without using it?

Hellfire and brimstone "bigots"? Seriously, I haven't found a lot of people that rejected fundamental baptists because they didn't know what that really meant and were turned off by the name, I have found a whole lot more that rejected it because they did more or less know what it meant and didn't like what IFB's(most of them anyway) generally stand for.

[John81]

I'm sure it is different in certain areas of the country, but the people in my city do not categorize us by the label 'Fundamentalist", they more know us by what they have seen from our members. It is like the saying goes, actions speak louder than words. Our community is watching our actions not what we call ourself. If we throw out fundamental, why are we keeping Baptist?

Agreed. It's typically those who don't know us (which happen to be the majority) that think ill of "fundamentalists". As we have said, those in our community should see Christ in us and know that attacks they hear against "fundamentalist Christians" don't fit with what they know of us.

Baptist is a name while fundamentalist is a descriptive. I'm not saying we have to drop any aspect of the name. The question is, what do we do when in this time when anything associated with fundamentalist is being painted as evil and more and more hearts, minds and doors are being closed to such...and what do we do as this gets worse?

As we know, the name Baptist used to say it all but today has become near meaningless as one can find Baptist churches ranging from very liberal to very conservative. The reason descriptives such as independent and fundamental were added to some Baptist churches was in order to distinquish them from all other Baptist churches.

Perhaps we could reframe the question to ask whether we may be entering a time when one or more new descriptive terms are needed in order for our churches to more clearly known for what they are, what they stand for?

It's not only a matter of the term fundamentalist becoming associated with evil, but the fact so many IFB churches today are joining the watery mainstream churches. Already in some areas IFB means no more than Baptist by itself because several churches calling themselves IFB have taken the liberal course.

With such being the trend it would seem likely that at some point IFB will no longer rightly distinquish who we are and will not give a proper description of us. What then?

[trc123]

Thank you everyone for your thoughts and ideas. I understand the various and differing viewpoints.

I would like to add that we Christians in our local churches are sometimes very naive and do not necessarily have a clue what others in the outside "world" are saying or think about our local assembly. While I would like to think that the vast majority of our neighbors evaluate us on the merits of our Christ like conduct and speech alone, I fear that this is simply not the case.

It is my contention that given today's circumstances and context, when most of our neighbors see the sign in front of our churches or on our literature and it says, "an independent, fundamental, bible believing church" they almost assuredly conjure up thoughts of right-wing nut jobs like Westboro Baptist.

Also, insisting on using some variance of the word "fundamental" on your sign out front or on your outreach literature simply because it is a good word and because you are not going to let the world's crowd ruin or taint it is very much in the same vein as if one were to insist on using the word "gay" to describe them self, rather than saying they are a happy person. Both are good words and may be appropriate to describe things within the context of church members discussing things (or a bible study); but totally ineffective and counter-productive if one is attempting to convey to the outside world that they are bible believing separated followers of the Lord Jesus Christ and would like an opportunity to tell them about the Saviour.

[HappyChristian]

I heard a preacher speak about this many years ago. He didn't want to be aligned with folks like the jw's, etc., so the church renamed itself "The First Biblicist Baptist Church." A professor I had in college told me he thought we should start a new movement (not he and I...fundamental Baptists), to separate ourselves from those who claim to be fundamentalists but aren't truly. His term? Biblimentalist. He said, after all, that we should really have a Biblical mentality, not a fundamental one.

My mom's church is Independent Baptist. The pastor believes all the fundamentals of the faith and is a godly man who teaches truth to the congregation. But he doesn't want to be allied with the often pugnacious and obnoxious fundamentalists. Can't say I blame him. But I'm still IFB.

trc - one thing I can honestly say: we in our church know exactly what folks outside our local assembly say and think about us. :lol:

[Brother Rick]

A lot of "fundamental" Baptists see no problem in correcting the KJV, so I call myself a Bible-Believing Baptist.

[John81]

A lot of "fundamental" Baptists see no problem in correcting the KJV, so I call myself a Bible-Believeing Baptist.

This seems to be an ever growing problem as well. Alreadys some IFBs have dropped the KJB in favor of some MV. It's a short step away for those who accept KJB correcting to be convinced to drop the KJB for an MV.

I really do tire of hearing, or reading, IFB pastors reading or quoting a verse from the KJB and then saying that verse would have been better written some other way. Some will even quote the KJB and then say the NASB or NIV got this one better, and then quote from that MV.

400th anniversary of the KJB but how much longer will the KJB be used from the pulpit or be treasured as anything more than relic?

[JerryNumbers]

If you start a new movement, them that removes you from that old movement started many years ago by Christ Jesus. Them you no different than many other movement that have come to be know throughout the years, except for maybe your teachings.

As for me I'll stay part of that old movement, they talked bad about while they murdered Christ on the cross. I figure they will talk bad about me and if I stand strong for Christ they just might murder me too. NO, I need no new name.

[trc123]

If you start a new movement, them that removes you from that old movement started many years ago by Christ Jesus. Them you no different than many other movement that have come to be know throughout the years, except for maybe your teachings.

As for me I'll stay part of that old movement, they talked bad about while they murdered Christ on the cross. I figure they will talk bad about me and if I stand strong for Christ they just might murder me too. NO, I need no new name.

So, J. Frank Norris and B.G. Vick started a new movement called the Independent Baptist Movement, therefore they are not part of the old movement and not of the Lord Jesus Christ? Is this what you are saying?

[JerryNumbers]

I'm not following J. Frank Norris and B.G. Vic, that is I'm not following man, I'm following Christ Jesus, the "Lamb of God, He is my only mediator, its His Church, it is He that I follow. and He was the one that started His Church, so I'm not going to be part of a new movement.


Mt 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

There has been many new movements down through the ages, the old movement is good enough for me.

[brosmith]

I have been an independent fundamental Baptist for 30 years. My observation is that the confusion does not come from extremist groups being called fundamentalists but from the wolves in sheeps clothing. Consider the following:

#1 - I clarify my position as an independent Baptist by stating that I am unaffiliated. Many preachers and churches that call themselves independent Baptists are in reality affiliated with some man made organization.

#2 - I clarify my position as a fundamental Baptist by stating that I believe in both personal and ecclesiatical separation (which means that I will not compromise for the sake of unity). Many preachers and churches that call themselves fundamental Baptists do not practice Biblical separation.

#3 - I clarify my position as a Bible believing Baptist by stating that I use only the King James Bible in my teaching, preaching, and studying. Many preachers and churches that call themselves Bible believing Baptists are prone to use other versions in some fashion.

There is also the confusion that comes by the way of so-called fundamental Southern Baptists. No matter how you slice it and dice it, a Southern Baptist can never be a fundamentalist.

I believe that many independent fundamental Baptist preachers and churches should just quit calling themselves independent fundamental Baptists. They are new-evangelicals in disguise. The main characteristics found in these wolves in sheeps clothing are worldliness, compromise, and a pragmatic spirit.

[brosmith]

So, J. Frank Norris and G.B. Vick started a new movement called the Independent Baptist Movement, ...

This is a common misconception. I believe that from the time of Christ until now that there has always been local churches that were independent and unaffiliated that held to what we call the Baptist distinctives. J. Frank Norris and G.B. Vick (along with others) withdrew from the Southern Baptist Convention and formed their own groups (Baptist Bible Fellowship and World Baptist Fellowship are the two main ones). They sought to unite "independent" Baptists under one umbrella.

[JerryNumbers]

This is a common misconception. I believe that from the time of Christ until now that there has always been local churches that were independent and unaffiliated that held to what we call the Baptist distinctives. J. Frank Norris and G.B. Vick (along with others) withdrew from the Southern Baptist Convention and formed their own groups (Baptist Bible Fellowship and World Baptist Fellowship are the two main ones). They sought to unite "independent" Baptists under one umbrella.

Yes, man is always wanting to start his own movement, group, or such, if he can get enough people, churches, behind him, that gives him power, and along with power comes riches.Your right on Jesus' Churches having always being around, if they have not been, the the old devil succeed.

[Brother Rick]

Yes, man is always wanting to start his own movement, group, or such, if he can get enough people, churches, behind him, that gives him power, and along with power comes riches.Your right on Jesus' Churches having always being around, if they have not been, the the old devil succeed.

"Jesus' Churches", if we're talking about local New Testament churches, have gone by several names throughout history. Ana-Baptist, Baptist, Independent Baptist, etc. My church goes by the title of Independent Baptist, but under the heading it says "A Bible Believing Church".

Many Independent Baptist pastors are not, which would lead me to believe their congregations are not either. Titles are good to clarify things, but when people within that group start to stink it up there's nothing wrong with re-defining things.

[HappyChristian]

"Jesus' Churches", if we're talking about local New Testament churches, have gone by several names throughout history. Ana-Baptist, Baptist, Independent Baptist, etc. My church goes by the title of Independent Baptist, but under the heading it says "A Bible Believing Church".

Many Independent Baptist pastors are not, which would lead me to believe their congregations are not either. Titles are good to clarify things, but when people within that group start to stink it up there's nothing wrong with re-defining things.

That would be called separation,would it not? :thumb: