Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Where do we draw the line for IFB?


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

​It is still what I would like.

I knew when I stated such, it would be denied, yet I feel better 'verbalizing' it.

Many don't understand that when they read something in the KJV and acknowledge it as fact, it was more than likely already

written in the Geneva Bible. Thus making what God said in the Geneva just as equal as the KJV. Yet there is much in the 'perversions'

that do the opposite. The older text of the 1560 does nothing but lift the Lord and his truth high, whereas the 'perversions' downgrade

the Lord and his truth. Equalizing the Word of God used earlier than the KJV, with the modern 'perversions' downgrades God's ability

to preserve his word continuously from Davids day to ours, since most will say it was "Thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever"

as is spoken in David's day in Psalm 12. Or am I missing something?

​Those who have studied the matter know the translators of the KJB consulted and compared the previous translations (Geneva, Bishops, Great, etc.) and there are stats and charts which show how much each of them and the KJB are the same.

While the older Bibles are exceedingly superior to the MVs, it makes for better continuity and ease of discussion when everyone here is quoting from and discussing things from the same Bible.

Being used to the wording of the Geneva Bible I can understand why you would prefer to use such more and why some of the wording in the Geneva fits your thinking better. If I read a book or article which uses MVs I make sure I have my KJB next to me in case a particular quote isn't clear to me or I can't reconcile it in my mind with what I recall from the KJB. While many others use the NIV, NLT, or another newer version because they say they understand it better, for me those are much more difficult to comprehend. I can read a verse or passage from the NIV (for example) and think "huh?" and then turn to the KJB and read the same verse or passage and it's clear to me.

In my case, the Lord led me to the KJB and upon heeding the Lord's command I found the Word to be so clear to me as it never was before no matter which MV I had tried (at that point I had not read any of the pre-KJBs).

Anyway, I can understand your thoughts on this, but this is a KJO board and everyone having the same Bible as our reference does help overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You are right to a degree.

When referencing a section of scripture to discuss, it would be of intrinsic value to see if anyone previous to the 1611 worded a 'studied' verse the same way.

(The intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has “in itself,” or “for its own sake,” or “as such,” or “in its own right.)

Thereby giving 'weight' to what some refer to as 'traditional' IFB beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

We have a defender of the KJB here, tho he hasn't posted here in some time, BrandPlucked, and he sometimes compares what other translations/verses say with what the KJB says. Properly done, there is nothing wrong with pointing out how other translations/versions use the same word or term as does the KJB. After all, the KJB translators diligently considered those versions which came before the KJB as they studied the "originals" as part of the process of putting together the KJB.

The board rule is that the KJB is to be used for quotes and the position of the board is that the KJB is perfect as is, with no need of correction from any other sources. It's acceptable to use something from another translation/version as it applies to something within the KJB so long as the use of the other translation/version isn't in the form of attacking the KJB, trying to diminish the KJB, or saying the KJB is wrong on some point. Along with this, the rule of this board is that no translation/version is to be promoted other than the KJB.

So properly used, a non-KJB verse may be posted. That would mean such use must be within the bounds of the rules and position of the board.

Brand Plucked has often shown the KJB verse followed by what others say in agreement with the KJB or which go astray as a part of his defense of the KJB.

It really comes down to intent of the post and keeping within the bounds of the rules and positions of this board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

We have a defender of the KJB here, tho he hasn't posted here in some time, BrandPlucked, and he sometimes compares what other translations/verses say with what the KJB says. Properly done, there is nothing wrong with pointing out how other translations/versions use the same word or term as does the KJB. After all, the KJB translators diligently considered those versions which came before the KJB as they studied the "originals" as part of the process of putting together the KJB.

The board rule is that the KJB is to be used for quotes and the position of the board is that the KJB is perfect as is, with no need of correction from any other sources. It's acceptable to use something from another translation/version as it applies to something within the KJB so long as the use of the other translation/version isn't in the form of attacking the KJB, trying to diminish the KJB, or saying the KJB is wrong on some point. Along with this, the rule of this board is that no translation/version is to be promoted other than the KJB.

So properly used, a non-KJB verse may be posted. That would mean such use must be within the bounds of the rules and position of the board.

Brand Plucked has often shown the KJB verse followed by what others say in agreement with the KJB or which go astray as a part of his defense of the KJB.

It really comes down to intent of the post and keeping within the bounds of the rules and positions of this board.

​Well said but, I caution, not so much that it becomes monotonous and forms into an agenda.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

​And so many cannot see the truth written in God's Word because they have been conditioned to believe a lie.

Exactly brother. I am referencing the opposite view and this is exactly my thinking. You hit it on the head! People will not believe the truth in Christianity's realm just because a 'great preacher' doesn't teach it, even though the scriptures say it.

That is exactly my view from where I am standing on my form of partial preterism. I can't see why people won't just 'see'.

Tradition truly binds the slave to it. And breaking the chain is rough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Exactly brother. I am referencing the opposite view and this is exactly my thinking. You hit it on the head! People will not believe the truth in Christianity's realm just because a 'great preacher' doesn't teach it, even though the scriptures say it.

That is exactly my view from where I am standing on my form of partial preterism. I can't see why people won't just 'see'.

Tradition truly binds the slave to it. And breaking the chain is rough.

​We must each be like the Bereans and search the Scriptures to know the truth. No teacher/preacher is perfect (neither are we) so we must be diligent to get in the Word, stay in the Word, and be in much prayer for wisdom and the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

Over the years many things I once held to because that's what I was taught I've found to not be in accord with Scripture. I thank the Lord for guiding me to study things out on my own. Most Christians today don't do that and won't do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Over the years many things I once held to because that's what I was taught I've found to not be in accord with Scripture. I thank the Lord for guiding me to study things out on my own. Most Christians today don't do that and won't do that.

​I too have lived this, and have come out of it. I now live my own convictions and follow the Lord the way I perceive he wants me to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I actually, in an argument on the gap theory, went to some earlier TR translations, even the German Luther Bible, to make a point on a matter, to show that all of them said the same thing, ("and the earth was without form, and void...", or an equivilent thereof), and none of them said anything like "BUT the earth BECAME...". So the earlier translations certainly have a place in some studies, but I agree, particularly, here, unless the topic IS the differences and similarities between the translations, (which might make an interesting study), its best of we are all on the same page. That being KJV. I will get out my photocopy of the 1611 version-it actually has a few variations. Be fun to do the spelling, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 I will get out my photocopy of the 1611 version-it actually has a few variations. Be fun to do the spelling, as well.

Check out 1 Peter 3:21. The punctuation has been 'erased' when the 1769 took over as the 'text of choice' for modern KJBs.

There was a reference to Blaney being a 'd***able corruptor of God's word', in one bible history section on versions that I read years ago.

 

Look at this -

The commonly printed 1769 KJBThe like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Here is the 1611 original edition -  The like figure whereunto, even Baptism, doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

Edited by Genevanpreacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

To go right back to the OP of this thread:

In the first part, the general board is and should be open to anyone who doesn't cause trouble.

But this section, by its very title should be restricted to the close set of "IFB" only. This is the reason for the question.

I do think that plainly, regardless of what somebody calls themselves, if someone plainly rejects many of the generally accepted basics of the IFB position, they should be excluded from this section of the website.

Just because someone may designate themselves as "IFB", if they by their teaching reveal that they hold to positions that are not generally accepted by IFB, such a person should be excluded from this section of the forum.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 7/21/2016 at 2:56 AM, DaveW said:

To go right back to the OP of this thread:

In the first part, the general board is and should be open to anyone who doesn't cause trouble.

But this section, by its very title should be restricted to the close set of "IFB" only. This is the reason for the question.

I do think that plainly, regardless of what somebody calls themselves, if someone plainly rejects many of the generally accepted basics of the IFB position, they should be excluded from this section of the website.

Just because someone may designate themselves as "IFB", if they by their teaching reveal that they hold to positions that are not generally accepted by IFB, such a person should be excluded from this section of the forum.

Defining trouble as being argumentative in differing beliefs would delete all here from being in this area of the site.

And pointing out the "generally accepted basics of the IFB position" would deny the Independent part of IFB.

True Biblical Baptist 'salvation' is inherently different than most denominations - something plus Jesus dying on the cross for payment of the sins of all mankind - since most denominations, and some Baptists, believe works included with believing in Jesus Christ with all your heart - anyone who believes correctly may call themselves Baptist in doctrine. Other doctrines outside of conversion do sometimes waver between differing views. So why get rid of someone from the INDEPENDENT Baptist realm because of beliefs differing outside of salvation? 

Because of strictly defined views against Independence of Baptist views.

I happen to be as Baptist as some and more than most, yet because of my views on subjects outside of conversion, some here think I am not IFB.

I may not fit Daves view or Alans view of an IFB but I am IFB.

The only time 'trouble' comes from me is when someone states a verse or verses say contrary than what the verses actually state, and claim it is a Baptist doctrine, I get a bit defensive and ask for clarity of the verses quoted - to which most times I get cast aside as having a bad attitude because I question 'normal Baptist teachings'.

Is there not a cause? Can nobody question the basis for some doctrines? is there ever a different view that might be more biblical? 

Not to most IFB here.

Independence is futile if it means 'boxed in' without the ability to correct.

Edited by Genevanpreacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
15 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Defining trouble as being argumentative in differing beliefs would delete all here from being in this area of the site.

And pointing out the "generally accepted basics of the IFB position" would deny the Independent part of IFB.

True Biblical Baptist 'salvation' is inherently different than most denominations - something plus Jesus dying on the cross for payment of the sins of all mankind - since most denominations, and some Baptists, believe works included with believing in Jesus Christ with all your heart - anyone who believes correctly may call themselves Baptist in doctrine. Other doctrines outside of conversion do sometimes waver between differing views. So why get rid of someone from the INDEPENDENT Baptist realm because of beliefs differing outside of salvation? 

Because of strictly defined views against Independence of Baptist views.

I happen to be as Baptist as some and more than most, yet because of my views on subjects outside of conversion, some here think I am not IFB.

I may not fit Daves view or Alans view of an IFB but I am IFB.

The only time 'trouble' comes from me is when someone states a verse or verses say contrary than what the verses actually state, and claim it is a Baptist doctrine, I get a bit defensive and ask for clarity of the verses quoted - to which most times I get cast aside as having a bad attitude because I question 'normal Baptist teachings'.

Is there not a cause? Can nobody question the basis for some doctrines? is there ever a different view that might be more biblical? 

Not to most IFB here.

Independence is futile if it means 'boxed in' without the ability to correct.

You quoted me in this response so I shall answer in part.

I never defined trouble in this thread in that way, so your point is irrelevant - unless of course you are accusing me of making that definition, in which case you are doing so without cause. Also in relation to that particular point, I only use it in reference to the general board, and in the context that someone who comes to this site for the purposes of causing trouble should be excluded from the board entirely. It has nothing at all to do with the IFB specific area.

The rest of the post shows an incredible lack of understanding of the actual issues.

GP said:

"True Biblical Baptist 'salvation' is inherently different than most denominations - something plus Jesus dying on the cross for payment of the sins of all mankind - since most denominations, and some Baptists, believe works included with believing in Jesus Christ with all your heart - anyone who believes correctly may call themselves Baptist in doctrine."

For instance, this portion of his post shows that he has no understanding of what it means to be a Baptist. Defining a Baptist as anyone who believes (salvation) correctly may rightly call themselves Baptist in doctrine" is simply incorrect.

In fact I know of people who teach salvation by grace alone without any sort of works added, who would be horrified at being called a baptist. 

Because they do not agree with many of the doctrines that are considered baptist.

GP has no understanding of what it actually means to be "independent" nor of what it means to be a "baptist".

Independent does not mean that everything except salvation is up for grabs - it simply means that each church is free to control its own way as it believes the Lord is directing them.

There are many churches who would and do embrace this sort of independence.

So what makes an independent church specifically an "Independent Baptist Church"?

It would be those "Distinctives" that I referred to as "the generally accepted basics of the IFB position".

Without such "distinctives" a church may very well be an independent church, and it may very well preach salvation correctly, but it could not be correctly called an Independent Baptist Church.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, DaveW said:

You quoted me in this response so I shall answer in part.

I never defined trouble in this thread in that way, so your point is irrelevant - unless of course you are accusing me of making that definition, in which case you are doing so without cause. Also in relation to that particular point, I only use it in reference to the general board, and in the context that someone who comes to this site for the purposes of causing trouble should be excluded from the board entirely. It has nothing at all to do with the IFB specific area.

The rest of the post shows an incredible lack of understanding of the actual issues.

GP said:

"True Biblical Baptist 'salvation' is inherently different than most denominations - something plus Jesus dying on the cross for payment of the sins of all mankind - since most denominations, and some Baptists, believe works included with believing in Jesus Christ with all your heart - anyone who believes correctly may call themselves Baptist in doctrine."

For instance, this portion of his post shows that he has no understanding of what it means to be a Baptist. Defining a Baptist as anyone who believes (salvation) correctly may rightly call themselves Baptist in doctrine" is simply incorrect.

In fact I know of people who teach salvation by grace alone without any sort of works added, who would be horrified at being called a baptist. 

Because they do not agree with many of the doctrines that are considered baptist.

GP has no understanding of what it actually means to be "independent" nor of what it means to be a "baptist".

Independent does not mean that everything except salvation is up for grabs - it simply means that each church is free to control its own way as it believes the Lord is directing them.

There are many churches who would and do embrace this sort of independence.

So what makes an independent church specifically an "Independent Baptist Church"?

It would be those "Distinctives" that I referred to as "the generally accepted basics of the IFB position".

Without such "distinctives" a church may very well be an independent church, and it may very well preach salvation correctly, but it could not be correctly called an Independent Baptist Church.

Your lack of stating your view without being an offense is quite awe-inspiring. 

You totally lack an ability to understand flexibility in wording - as to be a true believer IS to believe as a Baptist.

And no Dave you do not know people who believe by grace without works - there is always something when it comes to another denomination. I've spoken with them all.

If they have issues with the Baptist name, it's because of the saved by grace without anything else. You're missing something in their thinking.

Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
52 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Your lack of stating your view without being an offense is quite awe-inspiring. 

You totally lack an ability to understand flexibility in wording - as to be a true believer IS to believe as a Baptist.

And no Dave you do not know people who believe by grace without works - there is always something when it comes to another denomination. I've spoken with them all.

If they have issues with the Baptist name, it's because of the saved by grace without anything else. You're missing something in their thinking.

Period.

Before it gets changed........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, DaveW said:

Before it gets changed........

So you think people who have issues with the Baptist name yet agree in doctrine with Baptists have salvation correct?

Digging into why they have issues would be an interesting query.

Everyone I have ever spoken to personally about salvation, and there have been 100's in S E Indiana, that were other denominations, never agreed with the Baptist view salvation.

Never. Without exception.

So I find it very difficult to accept that anyone who would agree with Biblical salvation would have 'real' issues with the Baptist name.

Unless they came across some perverted Baptists that think works does go with salvation - and there are some.

Mennonite, Church of Christ, Church of God, Pentacostal, Christian, Wesleyan, Methodist, Episcopal, Catholic, etc. - none agreed with the true Biblical doctrine of salvation that is normal Baptist doctrine. Some came close - but have always an issue with something

Hurry and copy Dave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think it was NoNicolaitans that wrote something in the past about even IFB's teach a form of Replacement Theology.

So many do, and don't realize they do.  When it is pointed out that they do, they deny it being a form of Replacement Theology.  But it is whether they deny it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I admit, at times, to seriously considering dropping the IFB title, due to the poor name it has been given by some, preachers that are legalists, abusive and rule with an iron fist-I suspect most of us could name a few in that camp. However, I also realize that if that were the case, I'd have to drop the title of Christian, as well, because it has been so greatly perverted for the last...oh, 2000 years. So as I choose to continue to call myself a Christian, because TRUE biblical Christianity is right, so I have chosen to continue to call myself Independent Fundamental Baptist, because I believe in the meaning of the term(s), and hold to the heart of it. So instead of dropping the label, instead I choose to teach people what it means. I have a brief statement on our church website explaining what it is and did a tract that I pass out with gospel tracts, so people know WHO we are and WHY we are who we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Until I joined this message board I had never even heard of the F part of IFB. I, and any other Independent Baptists I fellow shipped with simply described ourselves as Independent Baptists, I always thought and continue to think that this simple designation is all that is needed. I think that at this late date the term "Fundamental" has come to be associated with extremists, especially outside of Baptist or even Christian ranks.

I use the term IFB here on these boards simply because it seems that this is the term that has been used here historically. But as for myself, I think it is an unneeded and possibly even a confusing descriptive term, especially to those outside of Baptist ranks.

I will never drop the name, "Baptist" because I believe that the truth has, and still does, reside in Baptist ranks. I will also continue to use the term "Independent" in my every day life to describe what kind of Baptist I am. I believe that our designation as "Independent" is born out by Scriptural examples of how the Church That Jesus Built is to function.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I, too, will never drop the IFB.

We are independent, separated from conferences and conventions where we would be governed by many who have never even stepped foot through our doors.

We are fundamental, in that, we hold to the fundamentals of the Christian faith; dismissing any doctrines that contradict what is written in the word of God.

We are Baptist, due to the fact that upon studying many other denominations, we find that they all lack in Biblical truths in one area or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recent Achievements

    • Razor earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      First Post
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...