Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      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.

What Makes On An "ifb"?


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

I suggested this , so thought I would start it.

 

I received this today as part of a missionary's letter, his statement of faith. He was sent out from a well-known IFB church in California, I won't say which one. I liked it, and thought I would posit it as the start of the discussion of "What Makes One an IFB?"

 

"

Doctrinal Statement for Missionary XXXXXXXXXXX (Compiled Personally)

 

 

  • I believe that there is one God (Isaiah 44:6) in three persons, the Father, the Son (the Lord Jesus Christ) and the Holy Ghost (Genesis 1:26; I John 5:7).
  • That God created the Heavens and the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh (Exodus 20:11).
  • That because of the first man Adam’s sin all human beings are sinners (Romans 5:12).
  • That all those to whom sin is imputed are condemned, after physical death, to an eternity away from God in literal burning hell and lake of fire (Revelation 21:8).
  • That because God the Father loves people He sent His Son to die for our sins (John 3:16).
  • That the Lord Jesus Christ, being God in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16) died on the cross for our sins and rose again the third day (I Corinthians 15:1-3).
  • That all who repent and turn to God (Acts 20:21), believing that God as Jesus Christ died for them and rose again are forgiven of their sin (Romans 10:9).
  • That those above are sealed by the Holy Spirit, until the day of redemption, being eternally saved and adopted into the family of God (Ephesians 1:13-14; Galatians 3:26).
  • That good works neither save nor keep saved; but that we are saved by grace through faith and sealed until the day of redemption  (Ephesians 2:8-9; 1:13-14).
  • That Christ ordained the local New Testament Church to do His work on Earth (Matthew 16:18).
  • That there is no authority above the local New Testament Church except the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 4:19-20; Ephesians 5:23).
  • That only those who have believed and thus been saved may (and must) be baptized (by total immersion under the water) to show their acceptance and partaking in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ to walk in the newness of life (Matthew 3:13-15; Romans 6:3-4).
  • That those who have believed and thus been saved, and baptized, should partake of unleavened bread and unfermented grape juice in memory of Christ’s sacrifice for us, as often as this ordnance is presented by their local Church (I Corinthians 11:23-26).
  • That every Christian should strive to walk with the Lord in daily prayer (2 Thessalonians 5:17) and Bible reading (Psalm 1:2), and not forsake the assembling of his fellow believers at his or her local Church (Hebrews 10:25).
  • That every Christian should strive to be separate from the ungodly attitudes and activities of those in the world around him, such as in clothing, language, music and other entertainment, in order to sanctify himself before the Lord and be an effective witness to the lost (Romans 12:1-2).
  • That every Christian should strive to submit himself to the will of God (James 4:7), by serving in the local Church and in personal life especially in regard to witnessing to the lost (Mark 16:15).
  • That the Holy Spirit inspired (2 Timothy 3:16) and preserved his perfect Words for us (Ps 12:6-7), in English being only the Authorized King James Version of the Bible (Ecclesiastes 8:4).
  • That this written Word, as we are guided to understand it by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13; 17:17), is our sole and final authority in all matters of faith and practice (Isaiah 8:20)."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

Independent - individual church congregation, not part of an organizational or denominational structure.

Fundamental - adhering to the fundamentals of the faith 

Baptist - practicing the ordinance of believer's baptism by immersion

 

Hmm. By the above list, almost all evangelicals are fundamentalists, most are baptist and many may even be independent. Making them Independent Fundamental Baptists. The above is the historical definition of Fundamentalism. The application of 'fundamentalist' has OBviously been expanded (or limited) to even more specific items, including the individual & church responsibility to share the gospel, and separation from the world (however that may be individually defined). Has the definition of fundamentalism then changed, or should we be using a different word to describe ourselves?   

 

We should bear in mind that just because someone does not agree with ourselves in every jot and tittle does not mean they are not fundamentalists or whatever the word may be. We are never going to agree with everyone about everything - or anyone about everything! Big picture things are in question here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 Has the definition of fundamentalism then changed, or should we be using a different word to describe ourselves?   

 

 

Yes, it should be KJV bible believer now. IFB doesn't mean a thing anymore. No more than when someone says they believe in the inerrant, verbal, plenary, etc. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

ASOD has a very good point about IFB not having any real meaning anymore. While IFB churches of the past that took another direction would drop the IFB name, many don't do that anymore. In this broader region here there are dozens, perhaps scores of IFB churches with very differing positions and practices.

 

Today one has to carefully examine IFB churches because many of them still have their old statement of faith but their practice no longer agrees with the statement.

 

IFB churches were never all in 100% agreement, but in the past the vast majority of them held to the same fundamentals and most often one IFB church wasn't radically different from another. That's no longer true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

ASOD has a very good point about IFB not having any real meaning anymore. While IFB churches of the past that took another direction would drop the IFB name, many don't do that anymore. In this broader region here there are dozens, perhaps scores of IFB churches with very differing positions and practices.

 

Today one has to carefully examine IFB churches because many of them still have their old statement of faith but their practice no longer agrees with the statement.

 

IFB churches were never all in 100% agreement, but in the past the vast majority of them held to the same fundamentals and most often one IFB church wasn't radically different from another. That's no longer true.

The IFB label was important at one time to distinguish from modernist churches but since that time (I say around the 1980's) the waters have been too muddied within the IFB movement for the label to mean much anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There were many of the older fundamentalists who recognized the fact that the very term "fundamentalist" was a broad term that included more than just the Baptists.  In fact, most Roman Catholics could be classified "fundamentalist" by definition. 

Fundamentalism grew out of a response to the liberalism that was creeping into conservative Christian colleges and seminaries.  This liberalism challenged the very authority of the written word of God, the deity of Christ, and the atonement of Christ.  Since fundamentalism was an ecumenical movement to some degree, the "fundamentals" were written broadly enough to include Presbyterians, Methodists, and other more conservative branches of Christianity.  (That is, those denominations were conservative at the time!) 

However, it was the Baptists who profited most from all of this, and were not afraid to associate themselves with the term "fundamentalist."  Then, once the Southern Baptists went communist and liberal in the first half of the 20th century, the Independent Baptists began to grow.  Because the war on liberalism was still going very strong, these independent Baptists who broke away from the Southern Baptists aligned themselves with the fundamentalist movement, and largely took it over.  BOB Jones University was a leading "fundamentalist" school, but BOB Jones was a Methodist.  Most of the other large fundamentalist schools were Baptist.  Notable exceptions were Moody Bible Institute (non-denominational), Dallas Theological Seminary (non-denominational), which are now both liberal. 

It is my opinion that the independent Baptist movement can largely be attributed to the work of J. Frank Norris, and his attempts to stop the slide of the Southern Baptist Convention. 

The continued rise of the Independent Baptists, who still labeled themselves "fundamentalists" because of the reaction to the rank liberalism that arose with the Westcott and Hort Greek Text and subsequent Bible perversions, brought a whole new meaning to the term "fundamentalist."  I think the leaders of the movement became so accustomed to using the term "fundamentalist" that most people simply forgot where the term came from, and what it was originally attempting to combat.  All of those independent Baptists who labelled themselves "fundamentalist" followed in the wake of Norris, who was decidedly pro-Israel, pre-tribulation rapture, and dispensational in his views.  Thus, the Independent "fundamental" Baptist movement was largely the same.   If the leaders had forgotten why they used the term "fundamentalist," then most certainly the people in the pews had no idea where the term came from, and simply continued to use that term, thinking it referred to themselves, and other likeminded Baptists.  Outside of the Independent Baptist movement, the term "fundamentalist" is rarely used in any positive connotation.  WE OWNED THAT TERM for several decades, until more recently, others have gotten a bit jealous of it, and decided they could muscle in on the territory they did not fight for.

 

The result has been confusion.  It has only been within the last 15-20 years that SOME of the IFB's have begun wavering on their dispensational views, and this stems directly from their interaction with other denominations who lay claim to the term "fundamentalist."  These IFB's seem to want a "dialogue" with those who did not stand up and fight against the rank liberalism at the time.

I can say this.  When I was growing up, ALL of the major independent Baptist schools were dispensational to some degree or another.  NONE of them were post-millennial, a-millennial, post-trib rapture, pre-wrath rapture, or accepted the Covenant Theology heresy. 

 

To summarize, the term "fundamentalist" in its original meaning as applied to the "fundamentalist" reaction to the onslaught of the liberalism in the first half of the 20th century does not mean the same thing as the term Independent Fundamental Baptists.  The IFB grew out of the original "fundamentalist" movement, but they took on their own meaning of that phrase, and separated themselves (as always!) from those who were not Baptist.  The great IFB leaders were Norris, Hyles, ROBerson, Vick, Rice, and their associates.

 

Therefore, in my view, to be a "fundamentalist" is one thing.  To be an Independent Fundamental Baptist is another thing.  The first refers to a broad range of various denominations that could include anything and everything, including Roman Catholics.  The second refers to those Baptists who grew out of that movement, and who held to the Baptist views on things, including some form of dispensationalism.  All of this recent back-pedaling from major Baptist colleges, and departure from a dispensational viewpoint is nothing more than a return to the Roman Catholic teaching that stems from the two greatest Bible Critics of all time - Origen and Augustine.  Baptists soundly refuted BOTH men in their own lifetime and still do.

 

I grew up in an old-fashioned Independent Fundamental Baptist church, and so it is hard for me to drop that term.  But because of the recent confusion over eschatology and the term "fundamentalist" I guess I am going to have to.  It grieves me to do so.

But I am a King James Bible Believer first and foremost.  I lay claim to the term Baptist, because everyone who honestly studies the Bible ends up with the Baptist position.  "The Bible makes us Baptist" as they say.

 

That's my view.

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It really doesn't matter what term we use today, we will have to explain it. If we say we are Baptist, we must explain what that means, what Baptists we are associated, and what ones we are not, and why. Saying we are independent often gives rise to many questions. The term fundamentalist has so many negative connections these days this often takes awhile to explain, especially with those who have some of those negative impressions firmly planted in their mind.

 

Even saying Bible believing isn't as clear as it once was because we have so many "versions" out there that millions of professing Christians claim to believe. Narrowing it down to KJB believing still requires explanation.

 

In a small city about 30-some miles from here there are two IFB churches. One IFB church uses the NASB, they sing a mix of contemporary choruses and hymns, they dropped their dress standards, they've become a bit more political-to the point of yoking with the RCC and other churches over political issues; and the other IFB church still uses the KJB, still sings hymns only, still holds to their dress standards, maintains strict separation, but they have determined to hunker down among themselves and huddle up so they are "rapture ready".

 

Speaking only from my own experience, I don't recall ever hearing an IFB pastor preach dispensationalism. All but one IFB pastor I've heard preach on the subject was pre-trib rapture in eschatology, but they were not dispensationalists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

Independent - individual church congregation, not part of an organizational or denominational structure.

Fundamental - adhering to the fundamentals of the faith 

Baptist - practicing the ordinance of believer's baptism by immersion

 

Hmm. By the above list, almost all evangelicals are fundamentalists, If I may differ: NO evangelicals are KJV-only, believing it to be the preserved word of God in English for today. I know of NONE that hold that position. Most hold to an open communion. Most have an organization above them and are not local church-ruled. Most are not sanctified, separation-teaching churches. Many use alcohiloc wine for the Lord's Supper, and advocate its use in moderation. So, no, most evangelical churches wouldn't fit the above definition. most are baptist and many may even be independent. Making them Independent Fundamental Baptists. The above is the historical definition of Fundamentalism. The application of 'fundamentalist' has OBviously been expanded (or limited) to even more specific items, including the individual & church responsibility to share the gospel, and separation from the world (however that may be individually defined). Has the definition of fundamentalism then changed, or should we be using a different word to describe ourselves?   

 

We should bear in mind that just because someone does not agree with ourselves in every jot and tittle does not mean they are not fundamentalists or whatever the word may be. We are never going to agree with everyone about everything - or anyone about everything! Big picture things are in question here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

 

 

You're right - none are KJV-only as a church - although individuals may be (my family was). I added the specification after writing the lower paragraphs - sorry! Evangelicals would identify themselves as believing in Biblical inspiration and inerrancy, though, and they do - after a sense. They are often either not aware of the MV debate or think it doesn't matter, and do not understand its impact on belief in inerrancy and inspiration.  On the other points, though, the five traditional fundamentals as listed above make no mention of separation, alcohol, or communion, and thus one can be a fundamentalist by that standard without holding to those tenants that we believe essential to modern fundamentalism.  The five fundamentals also make no statement on church organization - one could thus be a fundamentalist without being an independent. Thus, many evangelical churches would fit the above traditional definition of fundamental without matching our modern understanding of fundamentalism. SWIM? I like Pr. Steve's explanation of that phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
There were many of the older fundamentalists who recognized the fact that the very term "fundamentalist" was a broad term that included more than just the Baptists. In fact, most Roman Catholics could be classified "fundamentalist" by definition. Fundamentalism grew out of a response to the liberalism that was creeping into conservative Christian colleges and seminaries. This liberalism challenged the very authority of the written word of God, the deity of Christ, and the atonement of Christ. Since fundamentalism was an ecumenical movement to some degree, the "fundamentals" were written broadly enough to include Presbyterians, Methodists, and other more conservative branches of Christianity. (That is, those denominations were conservative at the time!) However, it was the Baptists who profited most from all of this, and were not afraid to associate themselves with the term "fundamentalist." Then, once the Southern Baptists went communist and liberal in the first half of the 20th century, the Independent Baptists began to grow. Because the war on liberalism was still going very strong, these independent Baptists who broke away from the Southern Baptists aligned themselves with the fundamentalist movement, and largely took it over. BOB Jones University was a leading "fundamentalist" school, but BOB Jones was a Methodist. Most of the other large fundamentalist schools were Baptist. Notable exceptions were Moody Bible Institute (non-denominational), Dallas Theological Seminary (non-denominational), which are now both liberal. It is my opinion that the independent Baptist movement can largely be attributed to the work of J. Frank Norris, and his attempts to stop the slide of the Southern Baptist Convention. The continued rise of the Independent Baptists, who still labeled themselves "fundamentalists" because of the reaction to the rank liberalism that arose with the Westcott and Hort Greek Text and subsequent Bible perversions, brought a whole new meaning to the term "fundamentalist." I think the leaders of the movement became so accustomed to using the term "fundamentalist" that most people simply forgot where the term came from, and what it was originally attempting to combat. All of those independent Baptists who labelled themselves "fundamentalist" followed in the wake of Norris, who was decidedly pro-Israel, pre-tribulation rapture, and dispensational in his views. Thus, the Independent "fundamental" Baptist movement was largely the same. If the leaders had forgotten why they used the term "fundamentalist," then most certainly the people in the pews had no idea where the term came from, and simply continued to use that term, thinking it referred to themselves, and other likeminded Baptists. Outside of the Independent Baptist movement, the term "fundamentalist" is rarely used in any positive connotation. WE OWNED THAT TERM for several decades, until more recently, others have gotten a bit jealous of it, and decided they could muscle in on the territory they did not fight for. The result has been confusion. It has only been within the last 15-20 years that SOME of the IFB's have begun wavering on their dispensational views, and this stems directly from their interaction with other denominations who lay claim to the term "fundamentalist." These IFB's seem to want a "dialogue" with those who did not stand up and fight against the rank liberalism at the time. I can say this. When I was growing up, ALL of the major independent Baptist schools were dispensational to some degree or another. NONE of them were post-millennial, a-millennial, post-trib rapture, pre-wrath rapture, or accepted the Covenant Theology heresy. To summarize, the term "fundamentalist" in its original meaning as applied to the "fundamentalist" reaction to the onslaught of the liberalism in the first half of the 20th century does not mean the same thing as the term Independent Fundamental Baptists. The IFB grew out of the original "fundamentalist" movement, but they took on their own meaning of that phrase, and separated themselves (as always!) from those who were not Baptist. The great IFB leaders were Norris, Hyles, ROBerson, Vick, Rice, and their associates. Therefore, in my view, to be a "fundamentalist" is one thing. To be an Independent Fundamental Baptist is another thing. The first refers to a broad range of various denominations that could include anything and everything, including Roman Catholics. The second refers to those Baptists who grew out of that movement, and who held to the Baptist views on things, including some form of dispensationalism. All of this recent back-pedaling from major Baptist colleges, and departure from a dispensational viewpoint is nothing more than a return to the Roman Catholic teaching that stems from the two greatest Bible Critics of all time - Origen and Augustine. Baptists soundly refuted BOTH men in their own lifetime and still do. I grew up in an old-fashioned Independent Fundamental Baptist church, and so it is hard for me to drop that term. But because of the recent confusion over eschatology and the term "fundamentalist" I guess I am going to have to. It grieves me to do so. But I am a King James Bible Believer first and foremost. I lay claim to the term Baptist, because everyone who honestly studies the Bible ends up with the Baptist position. "The Bible makes us Baptist" as they say. That's my view. In Christ,
I agree with most of this post. A couple of thoughts: First of all, Norris came out of the Dallas Area, where DTS was started for the sole purpose of teaching Scofield's Dispensational (Darbyist) System, which includes the Pre Trib. So, to say Norris kicked off the Fundamental Baptist Movement (Which I agree with as inarguable fact), and then to reject the fact that Darby and Scofield weren't the influences that brought PreTrib Dispyism to the IFB, is to be less than forthcoming. The tie- in that bothers me most, is that the IFB movement didn't reject the Bible Correctors. Scofield Bibles were found in every hand. Rice had his ecumenical Sword Conferences, where garbage like Torrey's junk was pushed. Hyles was no KJVO, until after Rice died, and Patterson came to work for him. His sermons included " The originals said..." or "a better translation was...." all the way through the mid '80's. They all read Spurgeon, who was fond of Calvin. We have to go back to the mid 1800's , before Armitage influenced the American Bible Societies to capitulate on the Nestle-Aland, to find pure, non-Darbyist, non denominationalist, non- ecumenical, non-Calvinist, Common English Bible ( What they called the universally accepted AV, at the time), Baptists. Yes, we needed to stand against the NCC Communism. Yes, we needed to be Independent again. Yes, we needed to separate from non-Baptists. But we brought some things out of Egypt, in our mixed multitude of IFB. We brought doubt in God's Word. We brought leaders who, though they were Baptist now, advised us to read Protestant Biographies, Commentaries, Study Systems, the Leeks and Garlics, if you would. We brought Church King Nicolaitanism. We brought faulty eschatology. We brought sloppy soul-winning. We brought Scofield Reference Satanism. We brought Rice....'nuff said. So, we still hear quotes from unbelievers like Torrey, Jones Sr.[No eternal security = no belief, right? 'Do right til the stars fall'(which is eschatologically correct, btw) because if you stop, you 'lose your salvation'.] and others at our IFB Bible Colleges. We still read Bios of 'great Christians' like that garbage pro-Catholic book out of Crown, by Ed Reese. We still hear how the Greek sheds more light on the Scriptures, usually from a guy who couldn't order off of a Greek menu. And we still get Calvinism, from the likes of Grady. I love all of these people. I love our rich heritage. But we are in a movement that was meant to purify, and we stopped far short of crossing Jordan. Anishinaabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If you would like to go through this point by point, I would be glad to Steve. I have laid out my reasons, you have laid out yours.
I don't see you as too far away from me.
I don't perceive you to be some heretic, trying to subvert God's Word purposefully.
If you see that I am honestly in favor of seeing our Movement come further out from among them, til we reach the promised land to conquer mightily, than let's get down to it, point by point.
I wish no one who has your sincere intentions any ill will.

If you will, respond. Someone may have to quote me, as Steve may have me on "ignore".

I am only interested in IFB, and have never been anything but IFB.
I am grieved by all of the doctrinal error I heard growing up, and in my first 20 years in the ministry.
But I was so busy planting churches, that I never wrote, blogged, or even spoke to people outside of my own ministry.
It wasn't till I pointed out Jack Schaap's attack on the KJV, in '05, and was attacked for it, that I realized that we had never finalized our pull out of the Bible Corrector's Error.

Search my heart, hear in my last 2 posts, see if you see some Protestant Heresy, or Charismatic subversion in them.

I claim no authority but God's Word, in English the Holy Bible Authorized (King James) Version.

I hold to the Baptist Distinctives.

The Fundamentals are broad and incomplete, so they don't rate, but I hold to them, by default.

I hold to Soulwinning, but not Salesmanship, Lordship, Emergentship or Vikingship salvation.

Can't we look at recent Baptist History, and see where we see eye to eye?

One day it will be too late for our movement, and where will Christianity be left then?

Our kids are fleeing, like rats off of a ship.

The Emergents are recruiting us.

Calvinism is rearing It's ugly Roman head again.

I will fight til they chop off my head, even if you are the one who turns me in, because I am wrong on eschatology. I will lay down my life for my Generation of Baptists.

Will you?

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Prophet

Just because Norris was in the Dallas area does not necessarily mean there was a tie in with Dallas Theological Seminary.  Norris was there long before DTS got started, and Norris was preaching dispensationalism before DTS was started - and he did not have a hand in starting that school anyway, so far as I know.

 

Here is why we can't have any rational discussion.

When you say things like...

"Scofield Reference Satanism..."

and

"We still get Calvinism from the likes of Grady..."

Grady?  Dr. William Grady?  He is not a Calvinist, so I have no idea what you are talking about there....

 

I make absolutely no apologies about what I believe, or why I believe it, and neither do you.  I don't count you an "enemy" so far as winning souls, local church, Baptist distinctives, etc. are concerned.  But we are worlds apart on some important doctrine.  I have some good Baptist preacher friends here in town who disagree with me on this stuff as well, but we get along fine.  So can you and I....but not when you keep hurling those insults. 

 

My position is this: if you believe the KJV is the perfect word of God - more power to you, even when we disagree on doctrine.  I am not the final authority, the KJV is.  I am not the HOly Spirit, so I can only present what I believe the Lord has taught me through various means, including Bible school training, reading, studying, etc.  I have done my best to be honest with myself and with the Lord in my studies, so I teach with a clear conscience. 

 

In my view, kids are fleeing because the pastors got too milk-soppy in their teaching and preaching.  They started emphasizing "ministry" and "service" over doctrine.  Doctrine is what keeps them coming.  But too many preachers are afraid to lay on the meat of the word because they might "offend" some people, or they don't think their people can handle it or something.  Well, they won't GROW properly if they are not FED properly.  Once sound Bible doctrine is emphasized, then the word of God starts making more sense as they can see how everything fits together. 

The emphasis seems to be on serving in crazy, invented "ministries" instead of a close, personal relationship with the Lord through private prayer, private bible reading, private Bible study, and then living the consistent Christian life before a lost world. 

Yes, soul-winning is great - and as you said, not salesmanship or mental manipulation.  But anyone can witness at any time during the week - why wait around for the scheduled, "official" church "soul-winning" night? 

 

I love our Baptist heritage and history, and I read as much of it as I can. 

 

I think we have much in common - all I ask is a little more respect instead of those awful insults. 

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

John,

You and I have had this discussion before.  Just because someone does not claim to be "dispensationalist" in an official statement, does not mean that they do not hold to some dispensational teachings.

Further, there is a wide range of "dispensationalism", just as there is a wide range of IFB.  Most IFB's are mild-to-moderate dispensationalists, whether they realize it or not, or whether they claim it or not.  Too many people have a knee-jerk reaction to the term "dispensationalist" and think the term means HYPER-dispensationalist, like Cornelius Stam promoted.  Such is not the case.

 

What makes a person a dispensationalist?

  • If you believe there is a distinction between the OT and the NT
  • If you believe there is a difference between the nation of Israel and the NT Church
  • If you believe that Jesus Christ will return to the earth PHYSICALLY and establish His Kingdom here in the future

 

Those are just three simple things that most IFB's believe and teach, and yet these are distinctively "dispensational" teachings, as opposed to the heresy of Covenant Theology (or as some call it, Replacement Theology.) 

This list above represents a mild - moderate form of dispensationalism. 

Since most IFB's hold to these, or at least used to, then they are/were dispensational even if they did not realize it.

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If you would like to go through this point by point, I would be glad to Steve. I have laid out my reasons, you have laid out yours.
I don't see you as too far away from me.
I don't perceive you to be some heretic, trying to subvert God's Word purposefully.
If you see that I am honestly in favor of seeing our Movement come further out from among them, til we reach the promised land to conquer mightily, than let's get down to it, point by point.
I wish no one who has your sincere intentions any ill will.

If you will, respond. Someone may have to quote me, as Steve may have me on "ignore".

I am only interested in IFB, and have never been anything but IFB.
I am grieved by all of the doctrinal error I heard growing up, and in my first 20 years in the ministry.
But I was so busy planting churches, that I never wrote, blogged, or even spoke to people outside of my own ministry.
It wasn't till I pointed out Jack Schaap's attack on the KJV, in '05, and was attacked for it, that I realized that we had never finalized our pull out of the Bible Corrector's Error.

Search my heart, hear in my last 2 posts, see if you see some Protestant Heresy, or Charismatic subversion in them.

I claim no authority but God's Word, in English the Holy Bible Authorized (King James) Version.

I hold to the Baptist Distinctives.

The Fundamentals are broad and incomplete, so they don't rate, but I hold to them, by default.

I hold to Soulwinning, but not Salesmanship, Lordship, Emergentship or Vikingship salvation.

Can't we look at recent Baptist History, and see where we see eye to eye?

One day it will be too late for our movement, and where will Christianity be left then?

Our kids are fleeing, like rats off of a ship.

The Emergents are recruiting us.

Calvinism is rearing It's ugly Roman head again.

I will fight til they chop off my head, even if you are the one who turns me in, because I am wrong on eschatology. I will lay down my life for my Generation of Baptists.

Will you?

Anishinaabe

 

Outstanding posts from both you and Steve in this thread.

 

I have to admit that I am baffled over the anti-dispensational and anti pretrib positions you hold however.

 

Setting aside all men's thoughts, writings and possible hidden agendas concerning these subjects in the past (who cares). What would make you not clearly see both in the Word alone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Prophet Just because Norris was in the Dallas area does not necessarily mean there was a tie in with Dallas Theological Seminary. Norris was there long before DTS got started, and Norris was preaching dispensationalism before DTS was started - and he did not have a hand in starting that school anyway, so far as I know. Here is why we can't have any rational discussion. When you say things like... "Scofield Reference Satanism..." and "We still get Calvinism from the likes of Grady..." Grady? Dr. William Grady? He is not a Calvinist, so I have no idea what you are talking about there.... I make absolutely no apologies about what I believe, or why I believe it, and neither do you. I don't count you an "enemy" so far as winning souls, local church, Baptist distinctives, etc. are concerned. But we are worlds apart on some important doctrine. I have some good Baptist preacher friends here in town who disagree with me on this stuff as well, but we get along fine. So can you and I....but not when you keep hurling those insults. My position is this: if you believe the KJV is the perfect word of God - more power to you, even when we disagree on doctrine. I am not the final authority, the KJV is. I am not the HOly Spirit, so I can only present what I believe the Lord has taught me through various means, including Bible school training, reading, studying, etc. I have done my best to be honest with myself and with the Lord in my studies, so I teach with a clear conscience. In my view, kids are fleeing because the pastors got too milk-soppy in their teaching and preaching. They started emphasizing "ministry" and "service" over doctrine. Doctrine is what keeps them coming. But too many preachers are afraid to lay on the meat of the word because they might "offend" some people, or they don't think their people can handle it or something. Well, they won't GROW properly if they are not FED properly. Once sound Bible doctrine is emphasized, then the word of God starts making more sense as they can see how everything fits together. The emphasis seems to be on serving in crazy, invented "ministries" instead of a close, personal relationship with the Lord through private prayer, private bible reading, private Bible study, and then living the consistent Christian life before a lost world. Yes, soul-winning is great - and as you said, not salesmanship or mental manipulation. But anyone can witness at any time during the week - why wait around for the scheduled, "official" church "soul-winning" night? I love our Baptist heritage and history, and I read as much of it as I can. I think we have much in common - all I ask is a little more respect instead of those awful insults. In Christ,
The Satanism I am referring to, in the Scofield Reference, is the claim that the KJV is mistranslated. Is this not Satanic? P.M. me, about Grady. Please. I hope that I am wrong, really. I thank God for that man, and love him dearly. Maybe you have some insight, I don't want to air it out here. Read the Book theme, in the Scofield Reference, at the beginning of 11Thes. He whined that he couldn't properly teach the pretrib from the book, because it was mistranslated. Even he admitted that 2Thes, in the KJV , didn't teach 2 separate "raptures". He just blamed the translators, instead of his hero, Darby. In doing so, He cast doubt on the Word, and exposed the roots of the Pre-Trib hoax....the Bible correctors. Anishinaabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Prophet

1.  I do not know of any man that has ever lived that had every single thing correct - whether it be doctrine or how they lived

2.  Yes, Scofield "corrected" the Bible in places, and this is the old nature that pops out in every saved sinner.  Every commentator that has ever written -with very few exceptions - has this propensity.  In their zeal to expound the word of God to help the saints, sometimes they overreach and try to "help God out."  So Scofield is not the only guilty party here.  No doubt, there are men who hold to your position that do the same thing - but I am not willing to call them "Satanic."  It is the old nature, plain and simple.  It is just an over-reach in the level of attack. 

3.  Anything written by man has some amount of leaven in it.  In my view, Scofield had some good ideas, so much so that for the most part I think the Scofield reference Bible is one of the best on the market - but it does have its prOBlems, just as ANYTHING written by man does, no matter what position they write from.  Does this make ALL writings of man "Satanic?" 

 

Look, I read Matthew Henry's commentary, who holds to replacement theology - but man, there is some good - GREAT - material in there, particularly in application.  I am not willing to call it Satanic because of the occasional place where he might "correct" the KJV, or teach something I don't agree with.  That is my point.

 

Yes, correcting the Bible stems from the devil himself - I get that.  But there is a difference between an honest, sincere, servant of the Lord who gets offbase OCCASIONALLY - as David, Elijah, Moses, Abraham, Peter, James, John, and Paul did - and an outright servant of the devil - like Ahab, Judas Iscariot, Westcott, Hort, and Cardinal Martini (one of the editors of the Nestle-Aland Greek Text.  Martini is a Roman Catholic bishop.) 

Scofield got offbase occasionally - who does not? 

Satanic? 

Over the top, brother.

 

Just remember that the next time YOU slip up, and YOUR old nature comes out.  Does it make YOU Satanic?

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Prophet
1. I do not know of any man that has ever lived that had every single thing correct - whether it be doctrine or how they lived
2. Yes, Scofield "corrected" the Bible in places, and this is the old nature that pops out in every saved sinner. Every commentator that has ever written -with very few exceptions - has this propensity. In their zeal to expound the word of God to help the saints, sometimes they overreach and try to "help God out." So Scofield is not the only guilty party here. No doubt, there are men who hold to your position that do the same thing - but I am not willing to call them "Satanic." It is the old nature, plain and simple. It is just an over-reach in the level of attack.
3. Anything written by man has some amount of leaven in it. In my view, Scofield had some good ideas, so much so that for the most part I think the Scofield reference Bible is one of the best on the market - but it does have its prOBlems, just as ANYTHING written by man does, no matter what position they write from. Does this make ALL writings of man "Satanic?"

Look, I read Matthew Henry's commentary, who holds to replacement theology - but man, there is some good - GREAT - material in there, particularly in application. I am not willing to call it Satanic because of the occasional place where he might "correct" the KJV, or teach something I don't agree with. That is my point.

Yes, correcting the Bible stems from the devil himself - I get that. But there is a difference between an honest, sincere, servant of the Lord who gets offbase OCCASIONALLY - as David, Elijah, Moses, Abraham, Peter, James, John, and Paul did - and an outright servant of the devil - like Ahab, Judas Iscariot, Westcott, Hort, and Cardinal Martini (one of the editors of the Nestle-Aland Greek Text. Martini is a Roman Catholic bishop.)
Scofield got offbase occasionally - who does not?
Satanic?
Over the top, brother.

Just remember that the next time YOU slip up, and YOUR old nature comes out. Does it make YOU Satanic?

In Christ,

If I attack the Scriptures, in order to teach my pet doctrine, yes, it makes that attack Satanic.

I stand by my evaluation, that Scofield, under Satan's influence, cast such doubt on the Scriptures here, that several generations stumbled over it.

I see it as the work of the evil one.

It is on a par with, and a partner to, Wescott and Hort.


Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Prophet,

I have attempted to show you how unreasonable you are in these statements.  They absurdly over the top, and fail to take into consideration the entire life's work of a person, instead of highlighting their human failures.  I even gave Scriptural examples - you can't get much worse than Peter denying the Lord on 3 occasions, but the Lord didn't cast him aside.  He forgave him and restored him.

Your hatred for dispensationalism has given you a blind eye to some things, and you are lumping things together that don't belong together. 

 

It is too bad you can't be more reasonable about this because I think that we are very close on many issues outside of dispensationalism.  It would be one thing if you presented your case more reasonably, but when you constantly lay the blame at Scofield's feet, and constantly overlook the REAL Bible perverters like Westcott and Hort, and then even go so far as to say that Scofield's work was Satanic???? 

 

That's just too much for me.  That's why I put you on my ignore list to begin with....but I was hopeful we could get past that point. 

 

So, happy soul-winning, and may the Lord's blessing be on your ministry. 

Romans 14:4 "...to his own master he standeth or falleth..."

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 10 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...