Article: Why I Have Not Left The Independent Baptist Movement.

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]Yes.  Independent local church governance has been around since the church began. 

No...Paul (and John) pretty clearly stuck his nose in a variety of churches where he was not a member

They were apostles....and had unique position and authority.

True, but they were also "since the church began" and clearly didn't believe that all congregations should be autonomous.

I don't think you can prove that position in scripture.

I can't prove that the Apostles were there "since the church began" or I can't prove that the Apostles stuck their noses in various congregations' business?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]The Apostolic Period was unique and church polity cannot operate today the way it did in that period. There was a power void left when the last apostle died....and I see NO Biblical proof or foundation for apostolic succession.[/quote]

This may be the case, but it's clearly evident that, for at least a time, there was no "autonomous church".

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Now, unlike some here, that's not a mountain on which I wish to die, but I believe in autonomous local churches.[/quote]

I don't think it's that black and white. Churches should be self-governing, but they also have a responsibility to other churches. Furthermore, this is a certain amount of unity in doctrine and practice that must be held to if "Christian" is to mean anything at all. As I stated, it's fundamentally impossible to be completely "independent" and be a Christian congregation.

(This doesn't even touch on the screwed up (i.e. unScriptural) worldview that elevates individualism to this level. (See other thread.))
[/quote]

You can't prove that they didn't intend that local churches should be autonomous in the post apostolic era.

Even the most Independent of Independent Churches do co-operate with other churches at some level. We are at camp this week with a number of IFB churches.....

 

[Just me]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]Yes.  Independent local church governance has been around since the church began. 

No...Paul (and John) pretty clearly stuck his nose in a variety of churches where he was not a member

They were apostles....and had unique position and authority.

True, but they were also "since the church began" and clearly didn't believe that all congregations should be autonomous.

I don't think you can prove that position in scripture.

I can't prove that the Apostles were there "since the church began" or I can't prove that the Apostles stuck their noses in various congregations' business?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]The Apostolic Period was unique and church polity cannot operate today the way it did in that period. There was a power void left when the last apostle died....and I see NO Biblical proof or foundation for apostolic succession.

This may be the case, but it's clearly evident that, for at least a time, there was no "autonomous church".

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Now, unlike some here, that's not a mountain on which I wish to die, but I believe in autonomous local churches.[/quote]

I don't think it's that black and white. Churches should be self-governing, but they also have a responsibility to other churches. Furthermore, this is a certain amount of unity in doctrine and practice that must be held to if "Christian" is to mean anything at all. As I stated, it's fundamentally impossible to be completely "independent" and be a Christian congregation.

(This doesn't even touch on the screwed up (i.e. unScriptural) worldview that elevates individualism to this level. (See other thread.))
[/quote]

You can't prove that they didn't intend that local churches should be autonomous in the post apostolic era.

Even the most Independent of Independent Churches do co-operate with other churches at some level. We are at camp this week with a number of IFB churches.....
[/quote]

"Autonomy" is just the pastors excuse to do what ever he wants, when ever he wants, how ever he wants and anyway he wants!!!

 

[Binaca Chugger]

"Autonomy" is just the pastors excuse to do what ever he wants, when ever he wants, how ever he wants and anyway he wants!!!

Nope. 

Your assessment is true for much of the NADD.  However, for a properly run church, the congregation knows that the pastor is simply a person like them who spends more time than the rest of them to study the Bible and help others understand God's Word.  If the pastor departs from good doctrine, he will be addressed by the membership and if he does not agree with Scripture, he will be removed as the pastor.  The pastor is not the Lord over the church.  The membership is not the Lord of the pastor.  Rather, the Scripture is the Final Authority.

 

[Just me]

"Autonomy" is just the pastors excuse to do what ever he wants, when ever he wants, how ever he wants and anyway he wants!!!

Nope. 

Your assessment is true for much of the NADD.  However, for a properly run church, the congregation knows that the pastor is simply a person like them who spends more time than the rest of them to study the Bible and help others understand God's Word.  If the pastor departs from good doctrine, he will be addressed by the membership and if he does not agree with Scripture, he will be removed as the pastor.  The pastor is not the Lord over the church.  The membership is not the Lord of the pastor.  Rather, the Scripture is the Final Authority.

I agree that is how a properly run church should be but in my experience I have yet to see it happen.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]You can't prove that they didn't intend that local churches should be autonomous in the post apostolic era.[/quote]

I haven't addressed the post-apostolic era. The claim was that autonomous churches were how things were done "since the church began".

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Even the most Independent of Independent Churches do co-operate with other churches at some level. We are at camp this week with a number of IFB churches.....[/quote]

Of course they do. That's my point. Although I would make it on much deeper issues than church camp.

 

[christundivided]

Sure they were Baptist. Don't get confused by the "Congregational Church". The idea of "independent" local "governance" has been around a long time. In America, it began or was greatly influenced by Puritans. Yet, don't consider them the source of the ideals of "independence".

No, they weren't. If they were they wouldn't have exiled Roger Williams, et al, for preaching re-baptism, amongst other things. I do agree that Congregationalists were, by and large, independents, but that doesn't make them Baptists.

I never said such. Baptist were congregationalist before anything IFB. Not the other way around.

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]The vast majority of American churches have always been "congregational" assemblies.

No.

Why CU would contend this is seriously puzzling. Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Catholics that made up the vast majority of American churches were not in any way autonomous. Aren't now either.
[/quote]

Many Protestants believed in Congregationalism even though they were part of larger structured organizations.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]Yes.  Independent local church governance has been around since the church began. 

No...Paul (and John) pretty clearly stuck his nose in a variety of churches where he was not a member

They were apostles....and had unique position and authority.

True, but they were also "since the church began" and clearly didn't believe that all congregations should be autonomous.

I don't think you can prove that position in scripture.

I can't prove that the Apostles were there "since the church began" or I can't prove that the Apostles stuck their noses in various congregations' business?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]The Apostolic Period was unique and church polity cannot operate today the way it did in that period. There was a power void left when the last apostle died....and I see NO Biblical proof or foundation for apostolic succession.

This may be the case, but it's clearly evident that, for at least a time, there was no "autonomous church".

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Now, unlike some here, that's not a mountain on which I wish to die, but I believe in autonomous local churches.

I don't think it's that black and white. Churches should be self-governing, but they also have a responsibility to other churches. Furthermore, this is a certain amount of unity in doctrine and practice that must be held to if "Christian" is to mean anything at all. As I stated, it's fundamentally impossible to be completely "independent" and be a Christian congregation.

(This doesn't even touch on the screwed up (i.e. unScriptural) worldview that elevates individualism to this level. (See other thread.))
[/quote]

You can't prove that they didn't intend that local churches should be autonomous in the post apostolic era.

Even the most Independent of Independent Churches do co-operate with other churches at some level. We are at camp this week with a number of IFB churches.....
[/quote]

"Autonomy" is just the pastors excuse to do what ever he wants, when ever he wants, how ever he wants and anyway he wants!!!
[/quote]

Please show me the post where anyone defined it as such.
Got paranoia? 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]You can't prove that they didn't intend that local churches should be autonomous in the post apostolic era.

I haven't addressed the post-apostolic era. The claim was that autonomous churches were how things were done "since the church began".

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Even the most Independent of Independent Churches do co-operate with other churches at some level. We are at camp this week with a number of IFB churches.....[/quote]

Of course they do. That's my point. Although I would make it on much deeper issues than church camp.
[/quote]

I didn't make that claim so don't have to defend it....the apostolic era was the beginning. It ended with the death of the last apostle. There is no apostolic authority....churches are autonomous.

And that was my point....that they do. Church Camp is a simple, practical illustration of such.

 

[Torrent v.3]

I am sure you have good reasons. I think it's up to you whether you leave or not. i

I don't know this guy, but I liked this article and I echo his sentiments toward Independent Baptists:
http://brentstancil.blogspot.com/2013/06/why-i-have-not-left-independent-baptist_5.html?m=1

I

 

[bgwilkinson]

How does one go about leaving the IFB movement?
Do you submit your resignation to the not a denomination denominational headquarters?

 

[Just me]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]Yes.  Independent local church governance has been around since the church began. 

No...Paul (and John) pretty clearly stuck his nose in a variety of churches where he was not a member

They were apostles....and had unique position and authority.

True, but they were also "since the church began" and clearly didn't believe that all congregations should be autonomous.

I don't think you can prove that position in scripture.

I can't prove that the Apostles were there "since the church began" or I can't prove that the Apostles stuck their noses in various congregations' business?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]The Apostolic Period was unique and church polity cannot operate today the way it did in that period. There was a power void left when the last apostle died....and I see NO Biblical proof or foundation for apostolic succession.

This may be the case, but it's clearly evident that, for at least a time, there was no "autonomous church".

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Now, unlike some here, that's not a mountain on which I wish to die, but I believe in autonomous local churches.

I don't think it's that black and white. Churches should be self-governing, but they also have a responsibility to other churches. Furthermore, this is a certain amount of unity in doctrine and practice that must be held to if "Christian" is to mean anything at all. As I stated, it's fundamentally impossible to be completely "independent" and be a Christian congregation.

(This doesn't even touch on the screwed up (i.e. unScriptural) worldview that elevates individualism to this level. (See other thread.))

You can't prove that they didn't intend that local churches should be autonomous in the post apostolic era.

Even the most Independent of Independent Churches do co-operate with other churches at some level. We are at camp this week with a number of IFB churches.....
[/quote]

"Autonomy" is just the pastors excuse to do what ever he wants, when ever he wants, how ever he wants and anyway he wants!!!
[/quote]

Please show me the post where anyone defined it as such.
Got paranoia? 
[/quote]

I do not know that a post like that exists but it does not have to.  Show me a pastor who does just what I stated that will admit to it.    Good luck with that but yet I can name several that I have been a member of their church and it is exactly as I stated..  They hide under the cloak Autonomy and do as I stated.

Paranoid, no just stating the facts

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]Yes.  Independent local church governance has been around since the church began. 

No...Paul (and John) pretty clearly stuck his nose in a variety of churches where he was not a member

They were apostles....and had unique position and authority.

True, but they were also "since the church began" and clearly didn't believe that all congregations should be autonomous.

I don't think you can prove that position in scripture.

I can't prove that the Apostles were there "since the church began" or I can't prove that the Apostles stuck their noses in various congregations' business?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]The Apostolic Period was unique and church polity cannot operate today the way it did in that period. There was a power void left when the last apostle died....and I see NO Biblical proof or foundation for apostolic succession.

This may be the case, but it's clearly evident that, for at least a time, there was no "autonomous church".

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Now, unlike some here, that's not a mountain on which I wish to die, but I believe in autonomous local churches.

I don't think it's that black and white. Churches should be self-governing, but they also have a responsibility to other churches. Furthermore, this is a certain amount of unity in doctrine and practice that must be held to if "Christian" is to mean anything at all. As I stated, it's fundamentally impossible to be completely "independent" and be a Christian congregation.

(This doesn't even touch on the screwed up (i.e. unScriptural) worldview that elevates individualism to this level. (See other thread.))

You can't prove that they didn't intend that local churches should be autonomous in the post apostolic era.

Even the most Independent of Independent Churches do co-operate with other churches at some level. We are at camp this week with a number of IFB churches.....

"Autonomy" is just the pastors excuse to do what ever he wants, when ever he wants, how ever he wants and anyway he wants!!!
[/quote]

Please show me the post where anyone defined it as such.
Got paranoia? 
[/quote]

I do not know that a post like that exists but it does not have to.  Show me a pastor who does just what I stated that will admit to it.    Good luck with that but yet I can name several that I have been a member of their church and it is exactly as I stated..  They hide under the cloak Autonomy and do as I stated.

Paranoid, no just stating the facts
[/quote]

The post doesn't exist because nobody on this thread believes that....maybe you should start a thread on that subject. 

You've been a member of SEVERAL?
I think once would be enough for me.....

 

[Just me]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]Yes.  Independent local church governance has been around since the church began. 

No...Paul (and John) pretty clearly stuck his nose in a variety of churches where he was not a member

They were apostles....and had unique position and authority.

True, but they were also "since the church began" and clearly didn't believe that all congregations should be autonomous.

I don't think you can prove that position in scripture.

I can't prove that the Apostles were there "since the church began" or I can't prove that the Apostles stuck their noses in various congregations' business?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]The Apostolic Period was unique and church polity cannot operate today the way it did in that period. There was a power void left when the last apostle died....and I see NO Biblical proof or foundation for apostolic succession.

This may be the case, but it's clearly evident that, for at least a time, there was no "autonomous church".

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Now, unlike some here, that's not a mountain on which I wish to die, but I believe in autonomous local churches.

I don't think it's that black and white. Churches should be self-governing, but they also have a responsibility to other churches. Furthermore, this is a certain amount of unity in doctrine and practice that must be held to if "Christian" is to mean anything at all. As I stated, it's fundamentally impossible to be completely "independent" and be a Christian congregation.

(This doesn't even touch on the screwed up (i.e. unScriptural) worldview that elevates individualism to this level. (See other thread.))

You can't prove that they didn't intend that local churches should be autonomous in the post apostolic era.

Even the most Independent of Independent Churches do co-operate with other churches at some level. We are at camp this week with a number of IFB churches.....

"Autonomy" is just the pastors excuse to do what ever he wants, when ever he wants, how ever he wants and anyway he wants!!!

Please show me the post where anyone defined it as such.
Got paranoia? 
[/quote]

I do not know that a post like that exists but it does not have to.  Show me a pastor who does just what I stated that will admit to it.    Good luck with that but yet I can name several that I have been a member of their church and it is exactly as I stated..  They hide under the cloak Autonomy and do as I stated.

Paranoid, no just stating the facts
[/quote]

The post doesn't exist because nobody on this thread believes that....maybe you should start a thread on that subject. 

You've been a member of SEVERAL?
I think once would be enough for me.....
[/quote]

Yeah I am not the brightest crayon in the box.  But I will never walk into that environment again although it is not like the church advertises itself that way.  I have never known a murderer to stand up and shout "hey I murder people come to the lake with me!!"