A Plea for my IFB Brother

I don't know for sure all that IFBs believe. Let me attest that it becomes much more intricate and distinct, the more one inspects.

This evening I stumbled upon another helpful yet less than scientific article regarding Independent Fundamentalist Baptists (IFBs).

The author begins by quoting an outsider. This outsider expresses a typical opinion of superficial commonality between normal and fundamentalist evangelicals. Next the author begins to disspell these superficial commonalities in several points to illustrate the marked differences between the two sects. I have taken only two of the author's brief points to illuminate how different the sects are upon a deeper dig. *

Somebody said to me,

"As far as I can see, fundamentalism and evangelicalism are really the same thing: You are Bible-believers, and you will only change on some point of teaching if you believe that your previous biblical understanding was in error (though you don't do that too often!), but you never change in order to be more 'in tune' with modern society (unlike liberals)."

While there is rather more than a grain of truth in that, and I take that person's comments as a compliment, there are some important differences between the two groups which we should be aware of.

1. The attitude to scholarship
One occasionally hears disparaging comments about 'theology' from some Christians; this tends to betray a fundamentalist prejudice. Fundamentalists often tended to see all academic learning as an enemy of biblical truth! They felt that the study of theology would only lead to giving Satan an entrance into our biblical reasonings; one still finds this approach among the cults and sects such as 'Jehovah's Witnesses' and among various more extreme charismatic groups. But most evangelicals would smile at this. After all, that word 'theology' simply means 'God speech' or, 'God's words,' nothing more sinister than that! While it is certainly true that some theology is liberal or otherwise distorted, much theology is wholly Bible-based and is simply an attempt to better understand the Word of God! So evangelicals are prepared to respect education and learning and not necessarily feel that these are ungodly activities.

7. Separationism
Fundamentalists have been tragically quick to separate from other equally sincere believers in areas where separation clearly appears to have been avoidable. Evangelicals, on the other hand, have more often adopted the attitude of agreeing to disagree in various areas, whilst agreeing on the necessity to preach the Gospel, and on all the vital teachings of the Christian Faith!
But fundamentalism always tended to be more exclusivist in approach with members rarely being prepared to work with other Bible-believing Christians where even quite minor areas of doctrine separated them. In our day, we have a very vivid and lamentable example of this in the move by a large group of churches in the United States to re-affirm fundamentalism upon the tragic battlefield of Bible translations!!
The ''KJV only' movement has divided churches in an argument which appears to have been especially avoidable! One could have surely agreed that some Bible translations are a little stronger than others, but that most translations have something to offer.

-Robin A. Brace, 2002

Here is a list of all the worldly Christian music artists, according to some members of the IFBs. Can you see in worship music, how different their idea of ecumenism and compromise is from the rest of evangelicalism? *

Lou Martuneac links his article labeled, "Perverse Things Draw Away Disciples," in his last comment for Tuesday at JPs latest blog post.

"Perverse"
TRANSLATION:
"Perverse" does not mean a cultural connotation of "sexual or social deviants" -- an unnecessary word-offense that happens over and again in these miscommunications. "Perverse" simply refers to "errors" including, to us, the most minute matters. See omission or new translations of words from KJV to other versions. In this case, it is simply another expression of a fundamentalist to express that the promise-only gospel, through omission, causes children to be led astray.

This famous question is asked at the end of his article:

Where does your first loyalty lie, to God and His Word, or to your friends and fellowships?

Any dose of warmth and friendliness will be seen as compromise, or as he successfully depicted things, the "slippery slope" on the way to eventual compromise. It must be difficult to have any friends, or few -- imagine how important agreement over scripture is, before fellowship, before friendship.

Any movement on anyone's part, toward even a new perspective on solely biblical grounds, such as JP's recent explanation of the greek meaning of the word "heretic" as he explains in his latest blog post, will be misread, and probably go unnoticed. It may very well be tacked up purely as a move of compromise. Only the closest of friends, those securely on the inside, have true freedom to suggest their grounds in the Word of God for honest disagreement.

Does this make sense?

The principles of 2 Timothy 2:14 apply just as much for a fundamentalist in their beliefs regarding biblical separation, as they apply to the crossless advocates in the appeals made on their behalf to abandon ecumenism:

Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers.

If no one has ever gone to a IFB brother, and preached and taught in a lowly and patient manner, showing him his error, how can that IFB brother be guilty of intentional discord? If you are convinced he has known better, then he ought to at least be able to repeat back to you, the charges he has heard you give. At least, if he has heard, he would have a choice, but, I bet even this is not at all possible. He has not comprehended it, so long as those who have preached to him have been disobedient, overthrowing the "hearing" of the words of correction found in scripture by their own manner.

Can you judge a man guilty who has not yet heard?

One day they will hear it, and when they do I believe they will rejoice. I was about to make this same argument from 2 Timothy 2 on behalf of the crossless people attempting to be reached.

There is "no profit" in correct and true broadcasts made without compassion. The Word of God has convinced me that there is no profit to be had. That is what 2 Timothy 2:14 says. It says, there has been no listening, so long as there has been strife, word-fights, or quarrels. These men are not guilty! They are innocent.

I beg consideration of our LORD's example:

1 Cor 1:27

But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

1 Cor 2:2-3

For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling.

2 Cor 13:4

For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God's power.

Phil 2:3-5

Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus....

1 Pet 4:8

Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.

1 John 3:16

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.

* There is a quotient of potential error on my part, because I'm still working on understanding and researching the IFBs and normal, or common evangelicalism. I'm willing to admit that and take correction or have dialogue concerning it. It remains true as well that any one individual belonging to the sect may or may not hold the expressly stated beliefs of any website being borrowed upon as these articles describe. Forgive me for inaccuracies, I'm trying to secure more reputable materials.