Tradition - what are your thoughts?

[chev1958]

Should we all go away because we don't agree with the interpretation of Scripture, even though we are united in Christ & his Gospel? I have made friends here, & had "Amens" to my posts.

When we disagree, should we go back & search the Scriptures, or expel those who disagree. Am I disagreeing with individuals, or with essential doctrine of IFBs? Do IFBs reject covenant theology?

Based on what your denomination teaches, I would disagree that we are united. For example, your belief that other forms of baptism – including infant baptism – are as equally valid as immersion baptism prevents you from being a member of the church I pastor. I'm not saying I believe baptism is a requirement for salvation; my point is that I believe other forms of baptism don't follow the example taught in Scripture and are not in accordance with Scripture.

This is not bringing into question your salvation, but Anglicans and fundamentalists are worlds apart in doctrine. Since I have searched the Scriptures, I believe the doctrines taught of the Bible and IFSB is the closet “label” to my understanding of Scripture.

(I hate labels because no one seems to have a solid definition of each label. I agree with parts of various labels, but I didn’t know I leaned dispensationalist until someone called me that. When I researched the term, I discovered that the theology best fit my understand of Scripture, but I’m not a tee-totaler. I guess it’s like being a two-point Calvinist, a five-pointer, or a seven-pointer; I agree with some parts of it, but not all.)

Now, you say you have searched the Scriptures, yet you’ve come up with vastly different doctrines than I and the majority on this board have. Both of us can’t be right. That’s what I meant by interpreting Scripture through filters; we all view Scripture through our own biases, upbringing, and background.

We’re all confident that our interpretation of Scripture is correct, and that’s based on the filters we have at our disposal. If I thought Anglicanism has the correct view of Scripture, then I would be an Anglican. For the life of me, I can’t understand from where Anglicans get their doctrines, just like I don’t understand Mormons, Catholics, 7th Day Adventists, and such. And I’m pretty sure you could say the same thing about IFSB.

While I was in the military, we had to find new churches at each duty station. The first churches we would visit were IFSB churches, because we knew the basics of what they believed and taught. My prayers and research led me to an IFSB church that I believe best fit Christ’s definition of church. Being IFSB gave us a starting point. But we didn’t join the first IFSB church we found in the phone book and then proceed to tell the pastor where he’s wrong. After one move, we visited four different IFSB churches until we found the one God led us to.

From previous post:

In particular, no-one can prove dispensationalism from Scripture. You accept it as "received truth" & refer to various Scriptures to support the doctrine, but which do not teach the doctrine.

I'm pretty sure many posters have given "proofs" to dispensationalism; you just don't accept those proofs, just like those IFSB folks who have given those proofs don't agree with your "proofs" either. It’s obvious that you’re not IFSB, so the problem is someone who isn’t IFSB joining our forum, saying we’re wrong, and then trying to proselytize.

While there are differences in what IFSB folks believe, there are more similarities. When we disagree, it’s a family disagreement. When someone outside the family sticks their nose in, though, we push our differences aside and circle the wagons to protect ourselves from outside attack.

So, while there are some IFSB members here who may agree with covenant theology, they can discuss that here because they're “family,” i.e., fellow IFSB. The same can be said for IFSB'ers who hold to dispensationalism, Calvinism, Arminianism, close/closed communion, the women-in-pants issue, etc. They have the similar upbringing and background. And there are limits even to that; several members who claimed to be IFSB were so extreme that they were shown the door.

But non-IFSB folks are not family in this context, and they are patiently tolerated until they cross the line. I don’t know where that line is, but in my opinion, you have crossed it.

[dantheman2]

I thought maybe there had been a break through.

It seems as though you and he are just far apart on what you were saying.

[dantheman2]

Based on what your denomination teaches, I would disagree that we are united. For example, your belief that other forms of baptism – including infant baptism – are as equally valid as immersion baptism prevents you from being a member of the church I pastor. I'm not saying I believe baptism is a requirement for salvation; my point is that I believe other forms of baptism don't follow the example taught in Scripture and are not in accordance with Scripture.

This is not bringing into question your salvation, but Anglicans and fundamentalists are worlds apart in doctrine. Since I have searched the Scriptures, I believe the doctrines taught of the Bible and IFSB is the closet “label” to my understanding of Scripture.

(I hate labels because no one seems to have a solid definition of each label. I agree with parts of various labels, but I didn’t know I leaned dispensationalist until someone called me that. When I researched the term, I discovered that the theology best fit my understand of Scripture, but I’m not a tee-totaler. I guess it’s like being a two-point Calvinist, a five-pointer, or a seven-pointer; I agree with some parts of it, but not all.)

Now, you say you have searched the Scriptures, yet you’ve come up with vastly different doctrines than I and the majority on this board have. Both of us can’t be right. That’s what I meant by interpreting Scripture through filters; we all view Scripture through our own biases, upbringing, and background.

We’re all confident that our interpretation of Scripture is correct, and that’s based on the filters we have at our disposal. If I thought Anglicanism has the correct view of Scripture, then I would be an Anglican. For the life of me, I can’t understand from where Anglicans get their doctrines, just like I don’t understand Mormons, Catholics, 7th Day Adventists, and such. And I’m pretty sure you could say the same thing about IFSB.

While I was in the military, we had to find new churches at each duty station. The first churches we would visit were IFSB churches, because we knew the basics of what they believed and taught. My prayers and research led me to an IFSB church that I believe best fit Christ’s definition of church. Being IFSB gave us a starting point. But we didn’t join the first IFSB church we found in the phone book and then proceed to tell the pastor where he’s wrong. After one move, we visited four different IFSB churches until we found the one God led us to.

From previous post:



I'm pretty sure many posters have given "proofs" to dispensationalism; you just don't accept those proofs, just like those IFSB folks who have given those proofs don't agree with your "proofs" either. It’s obvious that you’re not IFSB, so the problem is someone who isn’t IFSB joining our forum, saying we’re wrong, and then trying to proselytize.

While there are differences in what IFSB folks believe, there are more similarities. When we disagree, it’s a family disagreement. When someone outside the family sticks their nose in, though, we push our differences aside and circle the wagons to protect ourselves from outside attack.

So, while there are some IFSB members here who may agree with covenant theology, they can discuss that here because they're “family,” i.e., fellow IFSB. The same can be said for IFSB'ers who hold to dispensationalism, Calvinism, Arminianism, close/closed communion, the women-in-pants issue, etc. They have the similar upbringing and background. And there are limits even to that; several members who claimed to be IFSB were so extreme that they were shown the door.

But non-IFSB folks are not family in this context, and they are patiently tolerated until they cross the line. I don’t know where that line is, but in my opinion, you have crossed it.

Chev,

I can't say that I agree with Cov. I disagree with him on many things. Much of what he teaches does not have foundation in scriptures, but why fear an open discussion with him? If I am convinced of my beliefs and I am then why should I have any problem in discussing and refuting what someone else has to say?

[JerryNumbers]

Chev,

I can't say that I agree with Cov. I disagree with him on many things. Much of what he teaches does not have foundation in scriptures, but why fear an open discussion with him? If I am convinced of my beliefs and I am then why should I have any problem in discussing and refuting what someone else has to say?

If I wanted to discuss his beliefs, and argue with him on that which he believes and has been proclaiming, I would go to a message board that teaches such stuff. I am not on a Baptist, IFB board, in order to have to defend our beliefs, and be told I am wrong at every turn by someone like him, I'm here to fellowship with other such believers.


I think this man ought to show his respect for us by not coming here telling us we are wrong, that he is in charge of correcting us.


Now, if he wants to leave off his teaching, and learn and discuss what we believer, and STOP telling us we are wrong at every turn, them he is welcome. If someone like him came into our church and started telling us we were wrong, and spewing out the teachings he has here, I would polity ask him to leave,

Ga 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

[dantheman2]

If I wanted to discuss his beliefs, and argue with him on that which he believes and has been proclaiming, I would go to a message board that teaches such stuff. I am not on a Baptist, IFB board, in order to have to defend our beliefs, and be told I am wrong at every turn by someone like him, I'm here to fellowship with other such believers.


I think this man ought to show his respect for us by not coming here telling us we are wrong, that he is in charge of correcting us.


Now, if he wants to leave off his teaching, and learn and discuss what we believer, and STOP telling us we are wrong at every turn, them he is welcome. If someone like him came into our church and started telling us we were wrong, and spewing out the teachings he has here, I would polity ask him to leave,

Ga 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

We (people in general) are ok with "discussing our views with others" until they say something which disagree with those views. I have no problem with someone expressing a difference of opinion with me. Does that mean that I am going to change my mind? Of course not. Perhaps I will even be able to change the other persons thoughts on a point by having an open discussion examining the facts rather than simply closing my mind to everything. I would rather someone show me where I am mistaken (if I am) than to simply be mistaken. I would rather have the oportunity to show someone he is mistaken that to see him lost because we could not sit down and reasonably discuss an issue.

I know that not everyone holds the same view. That's ok.

By the way, Jerry, you say that you don't want him coming here telling you that you are wrong but if you wanted to discuss his issues, you would go to a site which teaches his believes. Does that mean you would go there and tell him that he is wrong?

[JerryNumbers]

We (people in general) are ok with "discussing our views with others" until they say something which disagree with those views. I have no problem with someone expressing a difference of opinion with me. Does that mean that I am going to change my mind? Of course not. Perhaps I will even be able to change the other persons thoughts on a point by having an open discussion examining the facts rather than simply closing my mind to everything. I would rather someone show me where I am mistaken (if I am) than to simply be mistaken. I would rather have the oportunity to show someone he is mistaken that to see him lost because we could not sit down and reasonably discuss an issue.

I know that not everyone holds the same view. That's ok.

By the way, Jerry, you say that you don't want him coming here telling you that you are wrong but if you wanted to discuss his issues, you would go to a site which teaches his believes. Does that mean you would go there and tell him that he is wrong?

You fail to understand any of what I stated in the two post I made on this issue. I said I would not do that. I stated I do not do that. And if I did such a thing I would not expect to be cheerfully welcomed. In fact I would expect to be banned quite quickly if I did such a thing.

[dantheman2]

You fail to understand any of what I stated in the two post I made on this issue. I said I would not do that. I stated I do not do that. And if I did such a thing I would not expect to be cheerfully welcomed. In fact I would expect to be banned quite quickly if I did such a thing.

Thanks for correcting me. Where do you believe is the proper place to discuss such things? Are we to simply allow those who believe in such things to remain in their error or do we attempt to reach those who are?

[John81]

What about these traditions?

Sunday night services

Wednesday night services

Sunday school

Church suppers/potlucks/buffets, etc.

Funerals at church

Weddings at church

Men wearing suits

There are many traditions various churches follow but I don't think we can blanket state that all are good or all are bad.

[Invicta]

Thanks for correcting me. Where do you believe is the proper place to discuss such things? Are we to simply allow those who believe in such things to remain in their error or do we attempt to reach those who are?

Dispensationalism is not an IFB teaching, but a Brethren one. They adopted it, developed it, nurtured it and eventually took it to the US. They new doctrine needed a new bible and Scofield supplied that, and the teaching took off.

[John81]

Dispensationalism is not an IFB teaching, but a Brethren one. They adopted it, developed it, nurtured it and eventually took it to the US. They new doctrine needed a new bible and Scofield supplied that, and the teaching took off.

I've been trying to study this out recently and thus far, from what I've found, I would tend to agree with your view on this.

[Covenanter]

Based on what your denomination teaches, I would disagree that we are united. For example, your belief that other forms of baptism – including infant baptism – are as equally valid as immersion baptism prevents you from being a member of the church I pastor. I'm not saying I believe baptism is a requirement for salvation; my point is that I believe other forms of baptism don't follow the example taught in Scripture and are not in accordance with Scripture.

I've followed the various discussions to try to assess the belief system of IFBs. My "denomination" is FIEC & has a fundamentalist doctrinal basis. I was baptised as a believer, by immersion, in an FIEC church in 1957. The allowed ambiguity concerning baptism is that many undoubted evangelicals have held to infant baptism or &/or sprinkling, & justified their position from Scripture alone, not tradition. These include the KJV translators, the Puritans, Wesley & other Methodists, Independents. Some of the anabaptists used sprinkling & carried a milk bailer for baptising. I maintain baptism of believers, not infants. The late Dr,. Martyn Lloyd-Jones who was a Congregational minister of Westminster Chapel, practised believers' baptism by sprinkling. He took the church out of the Congregational Union into the FIEC when the merger of the Congregational & English Presbyterians took place. {That "union" resulted in 4 denominations, not 1, with 3 new Congregational denominations being formed, one of which being fundamentalist. We are in close fellowship with that group.}

This is not bringing into question your salvation, but Anglicans and fundamentalists are worlds apart in doctrine. Since I have searched the Scriptures, I believe the doctrines taught of the Bible and IFSB is the closet “label” to my understanding of Scripture.

I left the Anglican church in 1957. Has IFSB a doctrinal statement? I have looked for one on this forum.


(I hate labels because no one seems to have a solid definition of each label. I agree with parts of various labels, but I didn’t know I leaned dispensationalist until someone called me that. When I researched the term, I discovered that the theology best fit my understand of Scripture, but I’m not a tee-totaler. I guess it’s like being a two-point Calvinist, a five-pointer, or a seven-pointer; I agree with some parts of it, but not all.)

Now, you say you have searched the Scriptures, yet you’ve come up with vastly different doctrines than I and the majority on this board have. Both of us can’t be right. That’s what I meant by interpreting Scripture through filters; we all view Scripture through our own biases, upbringing, and background.

I'm Tee-total & abstain from alcohol.

I seek to use as "filters" for understanding Scripture:
The natural historical context for a basic understanding;
The figurative or spiritual meaning implied;
OT prophecy & rituals to be understood as taught by Jesus & the Apostles;
NT prophecy to be understood in the natural context, in terms of the OT allusions where applicable;
cross references;
Strong's numbering to see how specific words are translated & used in context.

We’re all confident that our interpretation of Scripture is correct, and that’s based on the filters we have at our disposal. If I thought Anglicanism has the correct view of Scripture, then I would be an Anglican. For the life of me, I can’t understand from where Anglicans get their doctrines, just like I don’t understand Mormons, Catholics, 7th Day Adventists, and such.

Tradition has too big a part in those denominations. I reject them all.

And I’m pretty sure you could say the same thing about IFSB.

Why should I? I agree with much of what I read here, & I understand where those who disagree with me are coming from, & I can question & answer them from an informed understanding.


While I was in the military, we had to find new churches at each duty station. The first churches we would visit were IFSB churches, because we knew the basics of what they believed and taught. My prayers and research led me to an IFSB church that I believe best fit Christ’s definition of church. Being IFSB gave us a starting point. But we didn’t join the first IFSB church we found in the phone book and then proceed to tell the pastor where he’s wrong. After one move, we visited four different IFSB churches until we found the one God led us to.

I wouldn't be happy in every FIEC church - many of them use CCM.

From previous post:



I'm pretty sure many posters have given "proofs" to dispensationalism; you just don't accept those proofs, just like those IFSB folks who have given those proofs don't agree with your "proofs" either. It’s obvious that you’re not IFSB, so the problem is someone who isn’t IFSB joining our forum, saying we’re wrong, and then trying to proselytize.

While there are differences in what IFSB folks believe, there are more similarities. When we disagree, it’s a family disagreement. When someone outside the family sticks their nose in, though, we push our differences aside and circle the wagons to protect ourselves from outside attack.

So, while there are some IFSB members here who may agree with covenant theology, they can discuss that here because they're “family,” i.e., fellow IFSB. The same can be said for IFSB'ers who hold to dispensationalism, Calvinism, Arminianism, close/closed communion, the women-in-pants issue, etc. They have the similar upbringing and background. And there are limits even to that; several members who claimed to be IFSB were so extreme that they were shown the door.

I'm not trying to "proselytise" but to discuss & question certain interpretations. This is a forum where I feel most at home. Is IFB a closed "family" that shuts out Bible-believing believers because we aren't IFB. As an Englishman, I don't have the option of being IFB.

But non-IFSB folks are not family in this context, and they are patiently tolerated until they cross the line. I don’t know where that line is, but in my opinion, you have crossed it.

I will keep your comment in mind, but the consensus of posters seems to be in favour of me continuing.

[Invicta]

Please can somebody tell me the difference between IFB, IFSB and IFBF, please?

[JerryNumbers]

Please can somebody tell me the difference between IFB, IFSB and IFBF, please?

Independent Fundamental Baptist, the others I know not.

[JerryNumbers]

Please can somebody tell me the difference between IFB, IFSB and IFBF, please?

Independent Fundamental Baptist, the others I know not.