Is the IFB the only true church?

[irishman]

Irishman, it would be helpful if you'd address the Scriptures I listed which talk of "the church." As in, "Christ is the head of the church"...and, "Paul persecuted the church," and, "the Lord loves the church." The Bible indeed does add an "E-S" onto the end of "church" when speaking of individual, local bodies in the plural. And, there are singular usages of the word "church" which are obviously referring to local bodies as well. But I don't see how you can deny that the word "church" is used in a general sense as well...in a sense that does NOT denote a specific local body of believers, but many bodies of believers. Can you address the Scripture?

You ask if the shepherd of the "invisible church" is invisible as well. I think the answer is obvious: yes He is, at least right now. Christ is the head of "the church," the "good shepherd."

Irishman, I have no reason to "want" the word "church" to mean anything other than what Scripture indicates it means. I think it is clear that "church" can be used in both a general and specific sense.

Annie,
I believe I did address your references to the church, however, since it seems to be a mater of conscience, I defer to the fact that "church" is mentioned some 80 times in the New Testament.,contrary to what has previously been said in theses posts. A quick reference to Strongs will easily settle the matter. Church is church, and we cannot disect the word, nor add to or take from it, and expect others to hear us; it n=means what it means.
Jerry posted some excellent links to follow, written by men far more worthy than we are to discuss the subject, and they even followed the scripture! Have any of you cared to look them up? They explain the doctrine well, much better than I have, but too many would rely on their own wisdom, such as it may be, and get all bent out of shape while making fantastic statements about what others believe without really knowing themselves the doctrines taught. I see this all the time.


Rick,
the same with you; have you even bothered to skim over the references mentioned in an earlier post? I would doubt it. You say the the "briders" believe this and that, but really you cannot speak for another. By the way, just who are the guests at the wedding feast then? Maybe you have a better opinion. There were obviously the bride Groom, the bride, and "guests"; were they guests of the bride or of the groom? Maybe they wee freebee's off the street, from the highways and hedges, etc.? You could say they were angels, but that is a wild shot in the dark; so, who were they? How many were there? Please consider all aspects of the doctrine before you rale on them so harshly.

Baptist doctrine is Bible doctrine, and Bible doctrine is Baptist doctrine. Edited March 16, 2011 by irishman

[John81]

Baptist doctrine is Bible doctrine, and Bible doctrine is Baptist doctrine.

How could that be true when there is no one, single Baptist doctrine? Not all Baptist churches are in agreement on all matters. For instance, some Baptist churches are Calvinist while some are anti-Calvinist. Some Baptist churches hold to one view of eschatology while others hold to different views. Some Baptist churches practice "easy believism", or "one-two-three, repeat after men" salvation while others take an approach involving discussion of repentance. Etc.

Baptists are divided over many issues; the Bible is not.

[JerryNumbers]

How could that be true when there is no one, single Baptist doctrine? Not all Baptist churches are in agreement on all matters. For instance, some Baptist churches are Calvinist while some are anti-Calvinist. Some Baptist churches hold to one view of eschatology while others hold to different views. Some Baptist churches practice "easy believism", or "one-two-three, repeat after men" salvation while others take an approach involving discussion of repentance. Etc.

Baptists are divided over many issues; the Bible is not.

There is, but please remember, the strait gate in narrow, the other gate is very broad and wide. By the way,, I posted a page that contains many articles Bible doctrine which is Bible doctrine, and its very easy to see no one has{studied} it out, just keep saying the same old thing, wanting proof, when its been given.

[John81]

There is, but please remember, the strait gate in narrow, the other gate is very broad and wide. By the way,, I posted a page that contains many articles Bible doctrine which is Bible doctrine, and its very easy to see no one has{studied} it out, just keep saying the same old thing, wanting proof, when its been given.

I'm not sure what you are saying. All I was saying is that not all Baptist churches hold to biblical doctrine. One Baptist church about 25 miles from here used to be solid, but today they have a woman associate pastor and have watered down most standards and some doctrines.

[mattd]

There is, but please remember, the strait gate in narrow, the other gate is very broad and wide. By the way,, I posted a page that contains many articles Bible doctrine which is Bible doctrine, and its very easy to see no one has{studied} it out, just keep saying the same old thing, wanting proof, when its been given.

Brother Jerry, I did read a few of the articles you linked. Although I do agree with much of what the author has to say, he still isn't able to convince me that the BIble means something other than what it clearly says. I also thought his reasoning was full of faults, such as comparing the use of church/churches to his example of horse/horses. Not to sound snobby, but many of those articles are not very scholarly and are very opinion oriented, rather than scripture oriented. I am seriously trying to understand your position though and I, like Bro. Shrowder, think the main issue is a misguided problem with terminology. Let's see if you can/will answer a question: do you deny that all saved people are a part of the body of Christ?

[irishman]

I'm not sure what you are saying. All I was saying is that not all Baptist churches hold to biblical doctrine. One Baptist church about 25 miles from here used to be solid, but today they have a woman associate pastor and have watered down most standards and some doctrines.

John, that is what all this is about--getting back to Baptist doctrine! There used to be such a thing as Baptist doctrine, and it seems shameful to me that we cannot any longer claim such a thing because of all the other things that have infiltrated our doctrines. This particular doctrine affects other areas, perhaps more important, and is based on presumptions and falsehoods.
(By the way, those that say we think that Baptists are the true and only true church are mistaken. They interpret something they already fail to accept, and add a special twist to it to make it sound worse than what it is.) The IFB is not the only true church, but those who hold to the original doctrine may be! We are not talking about buildings, or denominations per se, but Bible doctrine. Edited March 17, 2011 by irishman

[John81]

John, that is what all this is about--getting back to Baptist doctrine! There used to be such a thing as Baptist doctrine, and it seems shameful to me that we cannot any longer claim such a thing because of all the other things that have infiltrated our doctrines. This particular doctrine affects other areas, perhaps more important, and is based on presumptions and falsehoods.
(By the way, those that say we think that Baptists are the true and only true church are mistaken. They interpret something they already fail to accept, and add a special twist to it to make it sound worse than what it is.) The IFB is not the only true church, but those who hold to the original doctrine may be! We are not talking about buildings, or denominations per se, but Bible doctrine.

In studying other issues I've seen differences between Baptists going back centuries. A Baptist confession from the 1600s has been posted here often in which they stand on Calvinism. Not all Baptists then or today accept that as being biblical so just how beyond 400 years ago do we have to go back to find a time when Baptists all held to the same doctrine?

While I love the Baptist name, much of Baptist history and the Baptist pastor who baptized me, I think we would be much better off espousing Bible doctrine which is unchanging and sure, rather than Baptist doctrine which means different things to different folks, both among Baptists and those who are not Baptists.

[dantheman2]

John, that is what all this is about--getting back to Baptist doctrine! There used to be such a thing as Baptist doctrine, and it seems shameful to me that we cannot any longer claim such a thing because of all the other things that have infiltrated our doctrines. This particular doctrine affects other areas, perhaps more important, and is based on presumptions and falsehoods.
(By the way, those that say we think that Baptists are the true and only true church are mistaken. They interpret something they already fail to accept, and add a special twist to it to make it sound worse than what it is.) The IFB is not the only true church, but those who hold to the original doctrine may be! We are not talking about buildings, or denominations per se, but Bible doctrine.

Should we get back to Baptist doctrine or Bible Doctrine? Those who hold to the original doctrine MAY be? Gal 1:6-9.

[heartstrings]

Playing music an a variety of churches, I have had the opportunity to witness a Methodist, and a Holiness preacher (saved in a Mennonite church) preach the Gospel in it's simplicity and purity. But I have also heard and heard of "Independent Baptists" who taught false doctrine. Having said that, I know of no other 'denomination' which is closer to Biblical doctrine than Baptist and I would say, as far as I know, the closest among Baptists is among the IFB's. But I have found it most needful to strive to follow the example of the Bereans, because we, as IFB's are not immune to the encroachment and deception of false doctrine.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

[Brother Rick]

Yes, I read some of the articles from the link Jerry provided. It's typical Brider baloney.

Their major "irrefutable proof text" is the passage that says there are guests at the wedding. As if by there being guests, queens, concubines, and virgins without number (SoS 6:8) at the wedding automatically proves that those people are other Christians within the body of Christ who didn't go to the perfect Baptist church that descended down in Apostolic succession from John the Baptist. It doesn't prove that at all, it's laughable.

John the Baptist, who was "the first Baptist" ISN'T in the bride. Jerry and Irishman, did you realize that? He's the friend of the Bridegoom in John 3:29. Do you know why? Because he died before Calvary - that's why he's not in "the Bride." The body of Christ is the bride of Christ, and the body was formed either at Calvary or Pentecost (in-house debate). The other individuals that are at the wedding are in a similar situation as John the Baptist - they are people from other ages in which there was no body of Christ.

There isn't a single biblical shred of evidence in the Bible that only a certain brand of Christians are the true bride of Christ to the exclusion of other Christians who are not.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Rick Schworer

[John81]

Playing music an a variety of churches, I have had the opportunity to witness a Methodist, and a Holiness preacher (saved in a Mennonite church) preach the Gospel in it's simplicity and purity. But I have also heard and heard of "Independent Baptists" who taught false doctrine. Having said that, I know of no other 'denomination' which is closer to Biblical doctrine than Baptist and I would say, as far as I know, the closest among Baptists is among the IFB's. But I have found it most needful to strive to follow the example of the Bereans, because we, as IFB's are not immune to the encroachment and deception of false doctrine.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Indeed, no matter the church name, no matter the preacher, we need to follow the example of the Bereans.

Several formerly solid IFB churches in this area have gone liberal. A few have dropped their IFB name, but some of them still call themselves IFB.

[irishman]

Yes, I read some of the articles from the link Jerry provided. It's typical Brider baloney.

Their major "irrefutable proof text" is the passage that says there are guests at the wedding. As if by there being guests, queens, concubines, and virgins without number (SoS 6:8) at the wedding automatically proves that those people are other Christians within the body of Christ who didn't go to the perfect Baptist church that descended down in Apostolic succession from John the Baptist. It doesn't prove that at all, it's laughable.

That is not the "irrefutable proof," as we have seen here, it is very much in dispute; however, I know what you mean by the statement. The "Guests" are merely a valid piece of evidence, it is not the paramount teaching of the brider. For your quote from Song of Solomon (Who says this applies to the wedding feast?) is the next verse: My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her." Many were excluded for the Kings "fair one". She was the choice one, the only one of her mother, etc.


John the Baptist, who was "the first Baptist" ISN'T in the bride. Jerry and Irishman, did you realize that? He's the friend of the Bridegoom in John 3:29. Do you know why? Because he died before Calvary - that's why he's not in "the Bride." The body of Christ is the bride of Christ, and the body was formed either at Calvary or Pentecost (in-house debate). The other individuals that are at the wedding are in a similar situation as John the Baptist - they are people from other ages in which there was no body of Christ.

Yes, I had heard that before.

There isn't a single biblical shred of evidence in the Bible that only a certain brand of Christians are the true bride of Christ to the exclusion of other Christians who are not.

True, but neither is there a bit of evidence that they all are! Many forget that, don't they? The same verses could support both thoughts.
Why does the conversation continually lead to denomination when we are speaking of doctrine? "A certain brand" of Christians are not the bride, it is determined by what they think of Jesus and his Word; they may be other denominations, but caught up in the wrong type of church. As many things as we believe that have no direct scriptural support, the point becomes a moot point (for instance: the seven dispensations, The churches conception, etc.)
Edited March 18, 2011 by irishman

[mattd]

True, but neither is there a bit of evidence that they all are! Many forget that, don't they? The same verses could support both thoughts.
Why does the conversation continually lead to denomination when we are speaking of doctrine? "A certain brand" of Christians are not the bride, it is determined by what they think of Jesus and his Word; they may be other denominations, but caught up in the wrong type of church. As many things as we believe that have no direct scriptural support, the point becomes a moot point (for instance: the seven dispensations, The churches conception, etc.)

It is determined by their faith and faith alone. If they have faith, they are members of the body of Christ, his bride -- his true and only church.

[Brother Rick]

True, but neither is there a bit of evidence that they all are! Many forget that, don't they? The same verses could support both thoughts.
Why does the conversation continually lead to denomination when we are speaking of doctrine? "A certain brand" of Christians are not the bride, it is determined by what they think of Jesus and his Word; they may be other denominations, but caught up in the wrong type of church. As many things as we believe that have no direct scriptural support, the point becomes a moot point (for instance: the seven dispensations, The churches conception, etc.)

There's tons of evidence and plenty of Scriptures that I've already provided that demonstrate that all Christians are in the Bride of Christ. It would seem as though it's yet to be seriously considered by you and Jerry, let alone refuted.

I've already explained it several times, and several times I've provided a link to the article on my site. Here it is again.

[irishman]

It's all a matter of interpretation.