Hello, I am a Fundamental Independent Baptist, What is the difference between us?
Lord Bless
Lord Bless
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!
Anabaptists vs Independent Fundamental Baptist
- Thread starter 1611AV
- Start date
I guess you are talking about me since I do that as my "signature" and we just answered the same question.
Well, Independent Fundamental Baptists are nothing new. We are independent of any organization or conference such as the authority of the pope for Catholics or the Southern Baptist Convention.
Well, Independent Fundamental Baptists are nothing new. We are independent of any organization or conference such as the authority of the pope for Catholics or the Southern Baptist Convention.
Upvote
0
WayneinMaine
Regular Member
The history of the two groups is quite different, as Anabptists are not Protestant and did not derive from any Protestant or Reformed group during the Reformation. So, for example, Martin Luther's and John Calvin's Theologies are irrelevent to Anabaptism which has its own "fundamentals" distinct from Protestant/Baptists.
Upvote
0
a pilgrim
Not a fan, but a follower.
Bro. Wayne, you said:
Though anabaptists do not adhere to the classic "calvinistic", (or Augustinian, for the hardcore historian,) doctrine, the were a "Reform group" of sorts. Some call then the Radical Reformation.
Like Calvin, Knox, etc., many of the anabaptist fathers of the 1500's were former Catholic priests who "saw the light" of truth as contained in only the scriptures, (thus Luther's phrase Sola Scriptora.)
The difference between Ind. Fund. Baptist and anabaptist is small and yet in many ways vast. IFBism, as we know it in America, (and around the world,) is a hybrid. Many do not like to admit it, but the early examples of the faiths called Baptist or Anabaptist were divided.
As stated above the anabaptist, as most know them, i.e., Mennonites, Amish, etc., came from that radical reformation in the 1500's. The early Baptists, as I've studies, were a reaction to the error in the church of England, (Anglicanism.) As the Puritan groups saw that they could not draw far enough away from the error and still be "in" the church of England, some of them, looking to the more pure example of anabaptism, and the first century church, broke with England and began "Baptist" churches. They were typically Calvinistic in their theology.
When the church came to America, and spread into the remote regions, more and more Baptist churches began. There was still the doctrinal split between those clinging to either General Baptist or Particular Baptist ways, (General meaning a general redemption, or free-will as opposed to Particular, meaning particular election [Calvinism.]) In time these groups realized, in some areas, that it was more profitable to work together and they met and discussed their differences and came to a happy medium, doctrinally. This is pretty much where we come up with the Arminian/Calvinistic views in modern Baptist thought, (with the exception of Free Will Baptists and Reformed Baptists, it is obvious where they stand.)
Having said that, it does not negate the validity of modern Baptist thought, but instead just goes to show the fluid nature of the church Jesus started. He, much to the dismay of most groups, did not start "their sect," but started his church. It is an organism, not an organization. If your church contains the "germ" of his church it is valid, if it does not, it is an organization. It may be good, but it needs to reflect HIM, not it.
I cut my teeth in IFB circles, and still have a great love for many brethren there, but there is an error that they need to free themselves from. Namely, thinking that they somehow have to have some written or unwritten link of "churches" that goes back to Jerusalem to the first church. I used to think the Montanists, Novatians, Donatist, etc., were Baptists. This is not so. They were Apostolic, (not to be confused with modern day apostolic/Pentecostal thought.) The churches the Apostles started and [some] of their converts started had the germ. They started churches that were about Christ. This is what Menno saw, this is what some of the early Baptist brethren saw. They might not have been eye-to-eye on if Arminianism or Calvinism was the best way to describe their faith, but they both saw Christ and a Christ-filled life in it.
I realize this is an old post, and it may sit unseen here on a back page, but to those who come along, I hope I have not grossly misrepresented this, most interesting, part of church history.
To Christ be the glory,
Bro. Ben
Though anabaptists do not adhere to the classic "calvinistic", (or Augustinian, for the hardcore historian,) doctrine, the were a "Reform group" of sorts. Some call then the Radical Reformation.
Like Calvin, Knox, etc., many of the anabaptist fathers of the 1500's were former Catholic priests who "saw the light" of truth as contained in only the scriptures, (thus Luther's phrase Sola Scriptora.)
The difference between Ind. Fund. Baptist and anabaptist is small and yet in many ways vast. IFBism, as we know it in America, (and around the world,) is a hybrid. Many do not like to admit it, but the early examples of the faiths called Baptist or Anabaptist were divided.
As stated above the anabaptist, as most know them, i.e., Mennonites, Amish, etc., came from that radical reformation in the 1500's. The early Baptists, as I've studies, were a reaction to the error in the church of England, (Anglicanism.) As the Puritan groups saw that they could not draw far enough away from the error and still be "in" the church of England, some of them, looking to the more pure example of anabaptism, and the first century church, broke with England and began "Baptist" churches. They were typically Calvinistic in their theology.
When the church came to America, and spread into the remote regions, more and more Baptist churches began. There was still the doctrinal split between those clinging to either General Baptist or Particular Baptist ways, (General meaning a general redemption, or free-will as opposed to Particular, meaning particular election [Calvinism.]) In time these groups realized, in some areas, that it was more profitable to work together and they met and discussed their differences and came to a happy medium, doctrinally. This is pretty much where we come up with the Arminian/Calvinistic views in modern Baptist thought, (with the exception of Free Will Baptists and Reformed Baptists, it is obvious where they stand.)
Having said that, it does not negate the validity of modern Baptist thought, but instead just goes to show the fluid nature of the church Jesus started. He, much to the dismay of most groups, did not start "their sect," but started his church. It is an organism, not an organization. If your church contains the "germ" of his church it is valid, if it does not, it is an organization. It may be good, but it needs to reflect HIM, not it.
I cut my teeth in IFB circles, and still have a great love for many brethren there, but there is an error that they need to free themselves from. Namely, thinking that they somehow have to have some written or unwritten link of "churches" that goes back to Jerusalem to the first church. I used to think the Montanists, Novatians, Donatist, etc., were Baptists. This is not so. They were Apostolic, (not to be confused with modern day apostolic/Pentecostal thought.) The churches the Apostles started and [some] of their converts started had the germ. They started churches that were about Christ. This is what Menno saw, this is what some of the early Baptist brethren saw. They might not have been eye-to-eye on if Arminianism or Calvinism was the best way to describe their faith, but they both saw Christ and a Christ-filled life in it.
I realize this is an old post, and it may sit unseen here on a back page, but to those who come along, I hope I have not grossly misrepresented this, most interesting, part of church history.
To Christ be the glory,
Bro. Ben
Upvote
0
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1
Help us spread the word. Please share this page with all your friends.
Genesis 1:1
Help us spread the word. Please share this page with all your friends.
Upvote
0
WayneinMaine
Regular Member
Thank you ben for filling in the IFB side.
In many practical ways modern Conservative Mennonites and Brethren groups resemble IFB churches. The difference may be the inherant ethnicity of Mennonitism and the head coverand and non-resistance -- but even those diminish (literally, in the case of the ehad covering) over time and what one hears from many Conservative "Anabaptist" pulpits is solid Protestant Fundamentalism..
In many practical ways modern Conservative Mennonites and Brethren groups resemble IFB churches. The difference may be the inherant ethnicity of Mennonitism and the head coverand and non-resistance -- but even those diminish (literally, in the case of the ehad covering) over time and what one hears from many Conservative "Anabaptist" pulpits is solid Protestant Fundamentalism..
Upvote
0
a pilgrim
Not a fan, but a follower.
I "cut my teeth" as it were in IFB circles, but have "tweeked" our families faith over the years. My wife and girls actually wear a head covering. I always knew there were essential elements missing from my IFB faith so we just made the adjustments and pressed forward. We are semi (don't laugh) non resistant. Though I don't think I could shoot someone, I sure wouldn't stand there counting my blessings if some guy busted in and wanted to harm my wife and children. As an anabaptist brother of mine said, "As I was tying up his hands and feet with the telephone cord, I'd tell him that Jesus can free him from a life of sin." (I saw you smiling, didn't I?) 
Ben
Ben
Upvote
0
WayneinMaine
Regular Member
Nothing tests our faith in God's soverign will, justice and power than to have to be prepared to not resist an evil person, in the recognition that God will make new or utterly destroy the man who does violence to one of His children.I "cut my teeth" as it were in IFB circles, but have "tweeked" our families faith over the years. My wife and girls actually wear a head covering. I always knew there were essential elements missing from my IFB faith so we just made the adjustments and pressed forward. We are semi (don't laugh) non resistant. Though I don't think I could shoot someone, I sure wouldn't stand there counting my blessings if some guy busted in and wanted to harm my wife and children. As an anabaptist brother of mine said, "As I was tying up his hands and feet with the telephone cord, I'd tell him that Jesus can free him from a life of sin." (I saw you smiling, didn't I?)
Ben
Upvote
0
Similar threads
