If You Started a Church from Scratch ...

[Ransom]

Ransom, I have no problem listing Baptist Conventions/Conferences gone bad.

Merely listing a bunch of Baptist denominations, and asserting that they have "gone bad" (without details) proves nothing to me, or anyone. There is no difference between that and a prejudice against denominations for its own sake.

 

[4everfsu]

Yes, I absolutely would.

People won't label a church for one of two reasons: either they don't believe anything, or they want to hide what they believe. The first is worse, but the second is still bad.

If that's what you are then say it. I've never been an independent, fundamental Baptist because it was popularly accepted. I've been an independent fundamental Baptist b/c I strongly believe in the core doctrines that underline each of those words. I'm IFB by biblical conviction, not birth, convenience, or pragmatism.

I don't believe your first statement is necessarily true.
For years I served on the board of a church planting organization...an Independent Baptist church planting organization. We had an extensive screening process, which began with a doctrinal statement. If you weren't in doctrinal agreement with us Baptists, we didn't waste your time or ours by beginning the process.

Years ago, almost every church was _______________ Baptist Church.
More recently, Baptist is seldom in the name....yet the belief system and church polity remains the same.
For the life of me, I don't see a problem with that.

I have used the same dry cleaner for 10 years and witnessed to them (husband and wife) for years. But he refused to attend a Baptist Church! Who knows why, but the stigma was strong. After 7 years, his wife finally came to church, Easter, I think. She was convicted and changed by the Holy Spirit, but only when their son was saved did Jeff come for his baptism. Today, they are faithful leaders in our church, but he jokes today that if we had Harvest Bible Church on the sign, he would have come 10 years sooner.

So far the best thing out of this thread is this

I have used the same dry cleaner for 10 years and witnessed to them (husband and wife) for years. But he refused to attend a Baptist Church! Who knows why, but the stigma was strong. After 7 years, his wife finally came to church, Easter, I think. She was convicted and changed by the Holy Spirit, but only when their son was saved did Jeff come for his baptism. Today, they are faithful leaders in our church, but he jokes today that if we had Harvest Bible Church on the sign, he would have come 10 years sooner.

 

[Izdaari]

If I were to actually start the Izdaarian Angloluthicostal Church I've joked about before on spoof church signs and the like...

I would not want to be Independent. I would seek to affiliate with the Anglican Communion.

 

[Tim]

If IFB Churches are truly Independent, then the name of the Church shouldn't matter. Yet, for many, being IFB matters greatly! What should matter is that the leadership doesn't compromise on Biblical Truth - this goes beyond a name!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

If IFB Churches are truly Independent, then the name of the Church shouldn't matter. Yet, for many, being IFB matters greatly! What should matter is that the leadership doesn't compromise on Biblical Truth - this goes beyond a name!

Exactly.

Many doctrinally liberal churches have baptist in their name.
Orthodoxy and practice are what makes a church 'baptist', not the sign.

 

[subllibrm]

Ransom, I have no problem listing Baptist Conventions/Conferences gone bad. Some here at home
Canadian Convention of Southern Baptists
now
Canadian National Baptist Baptist Convention
Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches
North American Baptist Conference
Convention of Atlantic Baptist Churches
Baptist General Conference of Canada

as well as some not at home

Southern Baptist Convention
Bible Baptist Fellowship
General Association of Regular Baptist Churches
World Baptist Fellowship

Just to name a few.

GARBC makes your list?

Would you care to point out where they have "gone bad"?

 

[subllibrm]

First United Christian Family Fellowship Community at the Pointe

 

[T-Bone]

Ransom, I have no problem listing Baptist Conventions/Conferences gone bad. Some here at home
Canadian Convention of Southern Baptists
now
Canadian National Baptist Baptist Convention
Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches
North American Baptist Conference
Convention of Atlantic Baptist Churches
Baptist General Conference of Canada

as well as some not at home

Southern Baptist Convention
Bible Baptist Fellowship
General Association of Regular Baptist Churches
World Baptist Fellowship

Just to name a few.

GARBC makes your list?

Would you care to point out where they have "gone bad"?

Don't you understand yet...truth doesn't matter to these guys...if a group or church is not as legalistic as they are then they are automatically liberal....it is clear all the Pharisees didn't die in the first century...they just changed their ornate robes for an ugly three piece suit.

 

[Tim]

Ransom, I have no problem listing Baptist Conventions/Conferences gone bad. Some here at home
Canadian Convention of Southern Baptists
now
Canadian National Baptist Baptist Convention
Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches
North American Baptist Conference
Convention of Atlantic Baptist Churches
Baptist General Conference of Canada

as well as some not at home

Southern Baptist Convention
Bible Baptist Fellowship
General Association of Regular Baptist Churches
World Baptist Fellowship

Just to name a few.

GARBC makes your list?

Would you care to point out where they have "gone bad"?

Don't you understand yet...truth doesn't matter to these guys...if a group or church is not as legalistic as they are then they are automatically liberal....it is clear all the Pharisees didn't die in the first century...they just changed their ornate robes for an ugly three piece suit.

Exactly! They might not purposely have this frame of mind, but many honestly come off this way.

 

[Frag]

Yes, I absolutely would.

People won't label a church for one of two reasons: either they don't believe anything, or they want to hide what they believe. The first is worse, but the second is still bad.

If that's what you are then say it. I've never been an independent, fundamental Baptist because it was popularly accepted. I've been an independent fundamental Baptist b/c I strongly believe in the core doctrines that underline each of those words. I'm IFB by biblical conviction, not birth, convenience, or pragmatism.

What he said....

 

[Frag]

The funniest name of a church..... near Gary, Indiana.... 


"The Nice Church" 


There you go!  Can't get more politically correct than that! 

 

[T-Bone]

I remember many years ago passing a church and mis-reading the sign as Convenient Baptist Church...I finally said to my wife, that is a strange name for a church, "Convenient Baptist Church", she looked at me and just shook her head and said, "Hun that's Covenant Baptist Church"..

 

[Tim]

Yes, I absolutely would.

People won't label a church for one of two reasons: either they don't believe anything, or they want to hide what they believe. The first is worse, but the second is still bad.

If that's what you are then say it. I've never been an independent, fundamental Baptist because it was popularly accepted. I've been an independent fundamental Baptist b/c I strongly believe in the core doctrines that underline each of those words. I'm IFB by biblical conviction, not birth, convenience, or pragmatism.

What he said....

At what point would the general poor report of other IFB Churches overshadow the benefits of labeling your Church IFB?

 

[prophet]

THE NICE CHURCH

They had purple busses.
They mighta been real "nice" guys.

Anishinaabe

 

[subllibrm]

Yes, I absolutely would.

People won't label a church for one of two reasons: either they don't believe anything, or they want to hide what they believe. The first is worse, but the second is still bad.

If that's what you are then say it. I've never been an independent, fundamental Baptist because it was popularly accepted. I've been an independent fundamental Baptist b/c I strongly believe in the core doctrines that underline each of those words. I'm IFB by biblical conviction, not birth, convenience, or pragmatism.

What he said....

At what point would the general poor report of other IFB Churches overshadow the benefits of labeling your Church IFB?

What poor reports? There have been no poor reports. Anything that could be misconstrued as a poor report is the work of satan against men of god who are only doing their anointed best. If you hear of a poor report rest assured that there are not enough witnesses to bring a charge so the poor report is not true. Not then, not now, not never. But even if there was even the slightest hint of truth to these pernicious rumors (which they aren't), you should know that so much good has been done that no amount of bad could ever taint the perfect reputation of all things IFB. Remember the worst IFB church is 1000 times better than the best church of any other kind (not that there are any good ones but you get the point).

 

[Patebald]

Tom said:

People won't label a church for one of two reasons: either they don't believe anything, or they want to hide what they believe. The first is worse, but the second is still bad.

Tom, this is pretty ridiculous. First of all - to say a church that doesn't have any specific denominational title in their name doesn't believe anything is just plain stupid. Secondly - have you stopped to consider that perhaps - just perhaps - there could be a greater reason for not having a label on their sign? For example, we live in a county that has roughly 275 square miles. Of those square miles there is 1.1 churches per square mile. Some streets in my county have 8 or more churches on them. One particular road has 3 churches side by side. They literally share parking lots. And here is the kicker - they are all labeled differently (Baptist, Presby & Methodist). This type of culture has created mass confusion within the unchurched community and so our church decided to avoid any type of labeling and simply advertise a church for anyone who wants to come. Our sign says NEXT LEVEL CHURCH. No Baptist, No Presby, No Methodist… Just church. And, to boot, we aren't trying to hide anything. We're simply trying to cut down on the confusion in the unchurched communities. Are you ready for this… wait for it - we actually believe and practice the Holy Scriptures.

 

[Patebald]

Tom Said:

Jesus didn't didn't shed His blood to purchase a denomination, and He never guaranteed one protection from the gates of hell either.

So what you're saying, then, is that He shed His blood for the CHURCH, right? Not the Baptist, not the Presbys, not the Methodist, not the Episcopalians, but the CHURCH... I can live with this. I'll stick with NEXT LEVEL CHURCH and leave Baptist, Presby, Methodist or any other label out of the name.

 

[Tim]

Yes, I absolutely would.

People won't label a church for one of two reasons: either they don't believe anything, or they want to hide what they believe. The first is worse, but the second is still bad.

If that's what you are then say it. I've never been an independent, fundamental Baptist because it was popularly accepted. I've been an independent fundamental Baptist b/c I strongly believe in the core doctrines that underline each of those words. I'm IFB by biblical conviction, not birth, convenience, or pragmatism.

What he said....

At what point would the general poor report of other IFB Churches overshadow the benefits of labeling your Church IFB?

What poor reports? There have been no poor reports. Anything that could be misconstrued as a poor report is the work of satan against men of god who are only doing their anointed best. If you hear of a poor report rest assured that there are not enough witnesses to bring a charge so the poor report is not true. Not then, not now, not never. But even if there was even the slightest hint of truth to these pernicious rumors (which they aren't), you should know that so much good has been done that no amount of bad could ever taint the perfect reputation of all things IFB. Remember the worst IFB church is 1000 times better than the best church of any other kind (not that there are any good ones but you get the point).

One poor report I have heard is from newly saved people who still have ear rings, tattoos, and don't dress in Sunday best for Church. Leadership claims to try and address this issue in Christian love, but they seem to frighten them off so many times with their words and aggression. I assume these sorts just were not ready for that next step in cleaning up their appearance (if this is God's will) .... but I doubt they would return to a "like" faith Church and probably end up in some liberal Church where they are not "attacked" .....

... such reports harm Christianity in my book ... and if IFB Churches get labeled as such, well, it might be time to change names and focus for the Pastors and leaders who are not so aggressive.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Yes, I absolutely would.

People won't label a church for one of two reasons: either they don't believe anything, or they want to hide what they believe. The first is worse, but the second is still bad.

If that's what you are then say it. I've never been an independent, fundamental Baptist because it was popularly accepted. I've been an independent fundamental Baptist b/c I strongly believe in the core doctrines that underline each of those words. I'm IFB by biblical conviction, not birth, convenience, or pragmatism.

What he said....

At what point would the general poor report of other IFB Churches overshadow the benefits of labeling your Church IFB?

What poor reports? There have been no poor reports. Anything that could be misconstrued as a poor report is the work of satan against men of god who are only doing their anointed best. If you hear of a poor report rest assured that there are not enough witnesses to bring a charge so the poor report is not true. Not then, not now, not never. But even if there was even the slightest hint of truth to these pernicious rumors (which they aren't), you should know that so much good has been done that no amount of bad could ever taint the perfect reputation of all things IFB. Remember the worst IFB church is 1000 times better than the best church of any other kind (not that there are any good ones but you get the point).

One poor report I have heard is from newly saved people who still have ear rings, tattoos, and don't dress in Sunday best for Church. Leadership claims to try and address this issue in Christian love, but they seem to frighten them off so many times with their words and aggression. I assume these sorts just were not ready for that next step in cleaning up their appearance (if this is God's will) .... but I doubt they would return to a "like" faith Church and probably end up in some liberal Church where they are not "attacked" .....

... such reports harm Christianity in my book ... and if IFB Churches get labeled as such, well, it might be time to change names and focus for the Pastors and leaders who are not so aggressive.

But Tim the name Independent Fundamental are not in the names of the vast majority of IFB Churches. They may occur in a description. What you are suggesting is change the name to trick offended people into coming. The topic of hair, earings and dress has nothing to do with the name Baptist. That simply describes the church as believing in The Authouritf of the Bible. the Autonomy of the Church, the Priesthod of the Believer, the Two Ordinances of the Church, Idividual Soul Liberty, Saved (regenerate)Church Membership, Two Offices and Separation of Church and State.

Those other issues (hair, earings, dress) are issues of personal seperation. Changng then name won't affect that at all.

 

[Tim]

Yes, I absolutely would.

People won't label a church for one of two reasons: either they don't believe anything, or they want to hide what they believe. The first is worse, but the second is still bad.

If that's what you are then say it. I've never been an independent, fundamental Baptist because it was popularly accepted. I've been an independent fundamental Baptist b/c I strongly believe in the core doctrines that underline each of those words. I'm IFB by biblical conviction, not birth, convenience, or pragmatism.

What he said....

At what point would the general poor report of other IFB Churches overshadow the benefits of labeling your Church IFB?

What poor reports? There have been no poor reports. Anything that could be misconstrued as a poor report is the work of satan against men of god who are only doing their anointed best. If you hear of a poor report rest assured that there are not enough witnesses to bring a charge so the poor report is not true. Not then, not now, not never. But even if there was even the slightest hint of truth to these pernicious rumors (which they aren't), you should know that so much good has been done that no amount of bad could ever taint the perfect reputation of all things IFB. Remember the worst IFB church is 1000 times better than the best church of any other kind (not that there are any good ones but you get the point).

One poor report I have heard is from newly saved people who still have ear rings, tattoos, and don't dress in Sunday best for Church. Leadership claims to try and address this issue in Christian love, but they seem to frighten them off so many times with their words and aggression. I assume these sorts just were not ready for that next step in cleaning up their appearance (if this is God's will) .... but I doubt they would return to a "like" faith Church and probably end up in some liberal Church where they are not "attacked" .....

... such reports harm Christianity in my book ... and if IFB Churches get labeled as such, well, it might be time to change names and focus for the Pastors and leaders who are not so aggressive.

But Tim the name Independent Fundamental are not in the names of the vast majority of IFB Churches. They may occur in a description. What you are suggesting is change the name to trick offended people into coming. The topic of hair, earings and dress has nothing to do with the name Baptist. That simply describes the church as believing in The Authouritf of the Bible. the Autonomy of the Church, the Priesthod of the Believer, the Two Ordinances of the Church, Idividual Soul Liberty, Saved (regenerate)Church Membership, Two Offices and Separation of Church and State.

Those other issues (hair, earings, dress) are issues of personal seperation. Changng then name won't affect that at all.

Then call it Biblical Truth.