A Brief History of the IFB

[Bruh]

All cultures and generations have 'standards'. If you look at pictures of the World Series games of the 50's the men wore suits and the ladies wore dresses and hats.

...which is my point. I agree that fundamentalists didn't fuss over such things but it bears mentioning that no one fussed over those things then. That doesn't mean fundamentalists now are necessarily wrong FOR fussing over such things because their predecessors didn't.

And, FTR, I do not think what a women or a man wears is a fundamental of the faith by any stretch. I am saying that attacking the IFB movement for standing up for dress standards on the basis that their forefathers never did is a total strawman.

It is not my intention to attack the IFB movement for standing up for dress standards. They are more than welcome to any standard they might choose to have. My problem comes when those in the IFB movement with those standards attack me because I don't believe or practice those standards.

Exactly!

They lump you in with the Mormons.

The church we just left wouldn't even allow my wife to teach Sunday school because she wore pants. My wife was brought up her entire life in an IFB church she is a stay at home wife and homeschools our kids. Her first kiss was to me her husband pure as the driven snow graduated from a state university cares for her home treats her husband like a king that he is ;-) reads her bible and wasn't allowed to teach children's Sunday school because she wore pants.

We for the most part agreed pretty much on everything but because we disagreed on this ONE thing, she couldn't teach SS. Not doctrine nothing Fundamental but pants. Does this make sense to anyone? Because it doesn't to me. Like I said they lump you in with the Mormons over pants.  :

Tom, maybe you can explain this to me because I really honestly don't get it.

Understand something, she never wore pants to any church function not one time, we knew better than to do that.

 

[Norefund]

Do you think the reason Fundamentalists place so much emphasis on standards is because you can easily and quickly judge someone's level of separation that way? It's easy to see someone's clothing, hair, music, etc but it's pretty hard to see into someone's heart and soul. 

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Tarheel,

I think you have some confusion about our history.  Please, again, read the OP.  The Fundamentalists were a group of people who united around a few basic fundamentals.  Some use the Five Points, others use the 14 Points to summarize their position.  It was a very broad group.  After the Scopes trial, they began to return to the work of local churches.  In doing so, they separated from each other.  This was primarily in the 20's.  The Southern Baptists began to fragment in the 30's when Frank Norris refused to pay his agreed upon amount for the Cooperative Program.  The Great Depression had hit and he didn't want to send money away from his churches to the mission field.  Thus Frank Norris began the separation.  Groups fragmented from his.  In the 1940's there was basically three issues of debate:  Support of the Cooperative Program, Standards and Premillennialism.  Standards were always a part of the fight for those separating from the SBC as referenced by John R Rice's works who led the charge into the modern IFB.  In the 50's and 60's and 70's, the SBC began to accept liberal theology, which caused more people to pull out of the SBC.  Liberal theology was not really an issue among these separatists until the 1960's.  In the 1980's, the Southern Baptists began to return to their doctrinal conservative roots, but continued the trend to modernize the worship trends.

The Independent Baptists withdrew for four reasons over the course of four decades:
1.  Premillenialism
2.  The choice of some to not support the cooperative program
3.  Doctrinal liberalism in seminaries
4.  Loosened standards of conviction at Bible schools and seminaries

Don't fool yourself into thinking that standards were only a recent issue.  John R Rice was successfully calling for people to pull out of the SBC as early as 1941 over personal standards.






I have found that many will separate from a group for a good reason.  This separation is never fun.  Relationships are broken.  In the process, emotions are hurt and both parties seek other reasons that they are right and the opposing view is wrong.  In this case, the Independent Baptists continued pointing to the loosened standards of the SBC as proof that they were right.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Do you think the reason Fundamentalists place so much emphasis on standards is because you can easily and quickly judge someone's level of separation that way? It's easy to see someone's clothing, hair, music, etc but it's pretty hard to see into someone's heart and soul.

I would like to keep this thread about the history of the movements, if possible.  This could really be its own thread.  However, it is also a part of the IFB.

Standards are supposed to be a personal conviction I choose to make because I believe this particular standard keeps me from sin and helps me to honor God in my life and allows me the opportunity to better testify of Him.  We must keep this definition of standards.  I have spoken with leadership in various IFB schools who all agree with this definition.  As I grow in my process of sanctification, I naturally tend to look less like the world and better reflect Christ in my daily life.  There should be an outward difference affected by the inward change.

Theoretically, the IFB agrees with this position.  The problem comes when they begin to place more emphasis on the outward change than the inward relationship.  This is very similar to the baptismal regeneration heresy.  Just as baptism is an outward sign of an inward confession, standards are an outward sign of an inward relationship.  Just as heretics began to judge the salvation of an individual by his baptism, the IFB began to judge the inward relationship with God of an individual by his outward behavior.  This evolved into a checklist by which one may be approved as having grown enough to be in positions of leadership.

The short answer is: legalism - a focus on the outward appearance rather than the inward relationship.

This grave error has produced many shallow Christians who really look the part yet have no idea why they live as they do.  Once in positions of leadership, the lacking internal relationship yields to great sin for standards cannot prevent sin.  Only a deep abiding relationship with Christ can cause a Christian to overcome sin and the tempter.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Tarheel,

I think you have some confusion about our history.  Please, again, read the OP.  The Fundamentalists were a group of people who united around a few basic fundamentals.  Some use the Five Points, others use the 14 Points to summarize their position.  It was a very broad group.  After the Scopes trial, they began to return to the work of local churches.  In doing so, they separated from each other.  This was primarily in the 20's.  The Southern Baptists began to fragment in the 30's when Frank Norris refused to pay his agreed upon amount for the Cooperative Program.  The Great Depression had hit and he didn't want to send money away from his churches to the mission field.  Thus Frank Norris began the separation.  Groups fragmented from his.  In the 1940's there was basically three issues of debate:  Support of the Cooperative Program, Standards and Premillennialism.  Standards were always a part of the fight for those separating from the SBC as referenced by John R Rice's works who led the charge into the modern IFB.  In the 50's and 60's and 70's, the SBC began to accept liberal theology, which caused more people to pull out of the SBC.  Liberal theology was not really an issue among these separatists until the 1960's.  In the 1980's, the Southern Baptists began to return to their doctrinal conservative roots, but continued the trend to modernize the worship trends.

The Independent Baptists withdrew for four reasons over the course of four decades:
1.  Premillenialism
2.  The choice of some to not support the cooperative program
3.  Doctrinal liberalism in seminaries
4.  Loosened standards of conviction at Bible schools and seminaries

Don't fool yourself into thinking that standards were only a recent issue.  John R Rice was successfully calling for people to pull out of the SBC as early as 1941 over personal standards.






I have found that many will separate from a group for a good reason.  This separation is never fun.  Relationships are broken.  In the process, emotions are hurt and both parties seek other reasons that they are right and the opposing view is wrong.  In this case, the Independent Baptists continued pointing to the loosened standards of the SBC as proof that they were right.

You are right.
I infused the Modernist-Fundamentalist Controversy from the early 1900-1920's into the conversation....which was clearly away from the OP's subject. I'm sorry. This controversy led to the publishing of The Five Fundamentals that the larger evangelical world uses to define a fundamentalist....which isn't how 'we' IFB's define the word.

 

[Matthew1323]

Do you think the reason Fundamentalists place so much emphasis on standards is because you can easily and quickly judge someone's level of separation that way? It's easy to see someone's clothing, hair, music, etc but it's pretty hard to see into someone's heart and soul.

I would like to keep this thread about the history of the movements, if possible.  This could really be its own thread.  However, it is also a part of the IFB.

Standards are supposed to be a personal conviction I choose to make because I believe this particular standard keeps me from sin and helps me to honor God in my life and allows me the opportunity to better testify of Him.  We must keep this definition of standards.  I have spoken with leadership in various IFB schools who all agree with this definition.  As I grow in my process of sanctification, I naturally tend to look less like the world and better reflect Christ in my daily life.  There should be an outward difference affected by the inward change.

Theoretically, the IFB agrees with this position.  The problem comes when they begin to place more emphasis on the outward change than the inward relationship.  This is very similar to the baptismal regeneration heresy.  Just as baptism is an outward sign of an inward confession, standards are an outward sign of an inward relationship.  Just as heretics began to judge the salvation of an individual by his baptism, the IFB began to judge the inward relationship with God of an individual by his outward behavior.  This evolved into a checklist by which one may be approved as having grown enough to be in positions of leadership.

The short answer is: legalism - a focus on the outward appearance rather than the inward relationship.

This grave error has produced many shallow Christians who really look the part yet have no idea why they live as they do.  Once in positions of leadership, the lacking internal relationship yields to great sin for standards cannot prevent sin.  Only a deep abiding relationship with Christ can cause a Christian to overcome sin and the tempter.

Excellent observations!

 

[16KJV11]

Do you think the reason Fundamentalists place so much emphasis on standards is because you can easily and quickly judge someone's level of separation that way? It's easy to see someone's clothing, hair, music, etc but it's pretty hard to see into someone's heart and soul.

I would like to keep this thread about the history of the movements, if possible.  This could really be its own thread.  However, it is also a part of the IFB.

Standards are supposed to be a personal conviction I choose to make because I believe this particular standard keeps me from sin and helps me to honor God in my life and allows me the opportunity to better testify of Him.  We must keep this definition of standards.  I have spoken with leadership in various IFB schools who all agree with this definition.  As I grow in my process of sanctification, I naturally tend to look less like the world and better reflect Christ in my daily life.  There should be an outward difference affected by the inward change.

Theoretically, the IFB agrees with this position.  The problem comes when they begin to place more emphasis on the outward change than the inward relationship.  This is very similar to the baptismal regeneration heresy.  Just as baptism is an outward sign of an inward confession, standards are an outward sign of an inward relationship.  Just as heretics began to judge the salvation of an individual by his baptism, the IFB began to judge the inward relationship with God of an individual by his outward behavior.  This evolved into a checklist by which one may be approved as having grown enough to be in positions of leadership.

The short answer is: legalism - a focus on the outward appearance rather than the inward relationship.

This grave error has produced many shallow Christians who really look the part yet have no idea why they live as they do.  Once in positions of leadership, the lacking internal relationship yields to great sin for standards cannot prevent sin.  Only a deep abiding relationship with Christ can cause a Christian to overcome sin and the tempter.

Good post chugalug...but I always defined legalism as adding something to obtain salvation outside of grace and faith.
I do understand what you are saying about legalism though.
Your understanding of the definition is truly a problem that has defined our brand of fundamentalism.
To be honest, I'm really not sure that I want to be identified with fundamentalism any more.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Good post chugalug...but I always defined legalism as adding something to obtain salvation outside of grace and faith.
I do understand what you are saying about legalism though.
Your understanding of the definition is truly a problem that has defined our brand of fundamentalism.
To be honest, I'm really not sure that I want to be identified with fundamentalism any more.

Thanks.

Growing up in the IFB, we were taught that legalism is adding works to salvation.  By this definition, the IFB is the farthest extreme from legalism of any religion (Want a cookie?  Repeat after me... Now your saved!).  However, the Christian life as defined by the IFB mandates that grace be earned through good works.  Teaching outward actions without any inward relationship is really what the IFB life is all about.  We could argue over semantics, but I think the term "legalism" does summarize the doctrine for daily Christian living in the IFB.  By the way, I have also discovered that there are some sects in denominations that abide by this same doctrine of legalism.  This leads to great problems.  Many, many good people have devoted their life to this manner of living, and found it wanting.  Several years ago, I did a Bible study that really helped me see this.  I started by trying to define worship through the Bible, looking at many instances of worship.  Accidentally, I discovered that obedience followed worship.  This is not the doctrine that I had been taught all of my life.  I was taught that obedience is worship or even that obedience produces the ability to have approval wherewith we can worship.  I had to admit that my understanding of Christianity was wrong.  I looked around for others who taught what I had discovered, and had to make a tough choice.  I am no longer a part of the NADD.  I am still Baptist.  I do believe in independent churches.  I follow the fundamentals.  I believe is separation.  I love my KJV.  I can't find churches who call themselves IFB who do not follow the legalism that may be called Performance Based Christianity.

 

[BALAAM]

Good post chugalug...but I always defined legalism as adding something to obtain salvation outside of grace and faith.
I do understand what you are saying about legalism though.
Your understanding of the definition is truly a problem that has defined our brand of fundamentalism.
To be honest, I'm really not sure that I want to be identified with fundamentalism any more.

Thanks.

Growing up in the IFB, we were taught that legalism is adding works to salvation.  By this definition, the IFB is the farthest extreme from legalism of any religion (Want a cookie?  Repeat after me... Now your saved!).  However, the Christian life as defined by the IFB mandates that grace be earned through good works.  Teaching outward actions without any inward relationship is really what the IFB life is all about.  We could argue over semantics, but I think the term "legalism" does summarize the doctrine for daily Christian living in the IFB.  By the way, I have also discovered that there are some sects in denominations that abide by this same doctrine of legalism.  This leads to great problems.  Many, many good people have devoted their life to this manner of living, and found it wanting.  Several years ago, I did a Bible study that really helped me see this.  I started by trying to define worship through the Bible, looking at many instances of worship.  Accidentally, I discovered that obedience followed worship.  This is not the doctrine that I had been taught all of my life.  I was taught that obedience is worship or even that obedience produces the ability to have approval wherewith we can worship.  I had to admit that my understanding of Christianity was wrong.  I looked around for others who taught what I had discovered, and had to make a tough choice.  I am no longer a part of the NADD.  I am still Baptist.  I do believe in independent churches.  I follow the fundamentals.  I believe is separation.  I love my KJV.  I can't find churches who call themselves IFB who do not follow the legalism that may be called Performance Based Christianity.

I have asked a dozen people who parrot this definition of legalism where they got the definition and have yet to get an answer. I said to each one that the only one I heard use this definition was jh and all of his minions seem to just repeat what he says.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

According to Dictionary.com, the origin of the word dates to 1830 and has multiple definitions:

1.  strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, especially to the letter rather than the spirit.
2.  Theology.
the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works.
the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws.
3.  (initial capital letter) (in Chinese philosophy) the principles and practices of a school of political theorists advocating strict legal control over all activities, a system of rewards and punishments uniform for all classes, and an absolute monarchy.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

If you don't want to call it legalism, call it Performance Based Christianity or just make up some other term.  The fact remains that this principle is prevalent in many churches, especially in the IFB NADD, and is a problem that leads to a Christianity that is simply a veneer.

 

[bgwilkinson]

If you don't want to call it legalism, call it Performance Based Christianity or just make up some other term.  The fact remains that this principle is prevalent in many churches, especially in the IFB NADD, and is a problem that leads to a Christianity that is simply a veneer.

Sorta like a lake a mile wide and an inch deep.