Sanctification through Doctrine: IFBs

In my study into the belief structure of the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist sect, I have discovered some indications that there is more or less a tendency to believe that one is sanctified by means of having correct doctrinal points of conviction.*

Let me provide some explanation (all following quotations are from the article sited below) [1]:

Independent Fundamental Baptist churches have fellowship one with the other and often cooperate in such endeavors as evangelism. However, practicing biblical separation they will only fellowship or cooperate in joint meetings with churches of like faith. They will not participate, as a church in any outside function with churches which do not also strictly base their faith and practice on the New Testament. They will not engage in joint meetings, or evangelistic endeavors, with Protestants, Catholics, or other doctrinally unsound church groups, who do not hold to the fundamental teachings of the New Testament. Fundamental Independent Baptists churches will remain separate from unsound churches, as well as other Baptists groups who join in with the unscriptural churches. They practice the biblical teachings of separation as taught in Ephesians 5:11, which state, "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Independent Baptists believe that to join with churches that teach and practice false doctrine is to tolerate and approve of errors. True, New Testament churches strongly believe that all doctrinal error is sin as the New Testament teaches.

With such a construct of error it is no wonder that any good IFB Christian would practice togetherness with other believers and therefore willingly, consciously choose to sin? You see that their clear conscience before God, hinges on "biblical separation." How far have they taken this separation? Are they just separated from those who have abandoned a belief in the inerrant Bible such as Catholics and liberal Protestants?

The name Independent Fundamental Baptist Church is used traditionally by churches which pattern themselves strictly after the example of the early church, as found in the New Testament. Today the name Baptist is used by many churches that are not following the teachings of the New Testament. Thus the words "Independent" and "Fundamental" have been added by many Baptist churches to further identify themselves as true Bible believing churches and to show a distinction between themselves and Baptist churches that were not following God's word. Most Baptist churches were in the past founded on the sound doctrinal teachings of the New Testament; however, many of them have in varying degrees drifted away from many of the teachings of the Scriptures. Some of these churches have gone so far to even deny the fundamental teachings of the Bible, such as the deity of Christ, the virgin birth and salvation by the Grace of God, through faith. Others have to a lesser degree compromised the Word of God by their teaching, practices and church polity trying to confront to popular religious tends. These worldly churches still call themselves "Baptists," but in fact they do not believe or practice what true Baptists have historically believed and more importantly what the Word of God says. The true Independent Fundamental Baptists have NO ASSOCIATION OR FELLOWSHIP with these churches because they teach or practice things contrary to the New Testament.

[emphasis in caps, mine]

Such a quest to be rid of the sin of error must suppose a location where error has been eliminated. Do IFBs believe their own group is completely absent of error? Yes:

Fundamental Baptists use the name in its strictest sense as meaning to hold soundly the fundamentals of the New Testament teachings without error.

Sanctification by doctrine is said here, again:

Many Anabaptists churches were strong New Testament churches believing and following the Word of God. Other Anabaptists groups were in gross error and corrupted. As with any true New Testament church, its validity as a true church approved of God, does not, nor or has ever rested on its name or on a succession of churches. A true New Testament church must be SOLELY discerned based on its adherence to the principles of God's Word.

[emphasis in caps, mine]

TRANSLATION:
"We stay clear of sin by adhering to correct [our] doctrine."

I just wonder, what's the difference between "the church," "the body of Christ," and "a New Testament church"? Think about that one for a little bit and make a comment if you see my point.

Here is another statement distinguishing the IFB mindset, on how churches begin and how they are found approved:

The Gospel is to be preached throughout the world by believers empowered by the Holy Spirit as Acts 1:8 plainly states. When a congregation results from the preaching of the Gospel, AUTHENTICATING that congregation as a New Testament church rests solely on its doctrine and practice....not in its affiliation or succession.

[emphasis in caps, mine]

These Christians have to demonstrate their true conversion to walking with Christ by coming up with "correct" doctrine & practice! And what constitutes "correct" doctrine? No other group's theology outside of their own. Stunning.

According to the author there are "five distinctives of a truly biblical new testament church." To these more common points, this IFB preacher (Cooper Abrams [1]) adds one more "historically unsupported" but mandatory distinctive; that distinction of correct doctrine proving "acceptance" by God:

Though, not a historic distinctive of a Baptist church, one other characteristic is necessary for an assembly to call its self a true New Testament church. This distinctive is based on the truth that God will not, nor can He bless or be a party to doctrinal error. A true New Testament church will believe and follow the correct and proper instructions of God's word. There are many churches that believe and practice false doctrines such as tongue speaking, do not practice biblical separation from worldliness and hold to other unbiblical views. A true New Testament church's doctrine and practice will correctly follow the word of God, thus churches that put themselves at odds with the Lord. The New Testament stresses purity in faith and practice as Revelation 2-3 clearly teach. To five of the seven churches of Asia Jesus said He has things against them. He warned them strongly to correct their failures or He would take action against them. A true church that has the blessings of the Lord will diligently seek purity in faith and practice. Those who refuse to repent of their errors will not have the approval or the blessings of God.

Thoughts?

You know, I'm all for making a case that those who believe are biblical in doctrine and those who are biblical in doctrine make evident their belief, even fellowship with God. The work of God does indeed include conforming believers in the truths of the Word. But, what does the bible say about how one is sanctified?





* There is a quotient of potential error on my part, because I'm still working on understanding and researching this sect. 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 Cooper Abrams as his article describes.

[1] Cooper Abrams III; Independent Fundamentalist Baptist missionary and pastor, ThB, MBS. From A Brief Survey of IFB Churches, Sept. 2007.