• Home
  
  
• Origins of IFBs
  
  
• About Me
  
  
• Whats New?
  
  
• Articles by Topic
  
  
• IFB Church Directory
  
  
• Links
  
  
• Comments
  
  
• Email Me

How we came to be where we are today

A brief survey of the origins of Independent Fundamental Baptists

by Larry Harriman

During the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century men like Martin Luther and John Calvin(former Catholics) "protested" the errors and excesses of the Catholic Church. The doctrine of Justification by grace through faith alone received a whole new light. This is not to say that the Gospel had not been preserved throughout church history - but because many had never heard the true Gospel it seemed like a brand new, extraordinary concept.

But the "magisterial" reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin did not go far enough in their reform, they still kept much tradition from the Catholic Church(like infant baptism, formalism and church-state rule). Others who could be classed as the "Radical Reformers" sought to bring their churches back to the Apostolic pattern. They believed the Church of Rome was too corrupt to use as starting point and went back to the New Testament for their example.

These "Radical" Reformers included English Seperatists,European Anabaptists and others who came out from the Catholic and Anglican Churches. While it is not difficult to prove that there were pockets of Bible believing Christians throughout church history it is impossible to prove a direct genealogical succession of Bible believing churches from one church to the next.Many times in church history God would reveal the truth of the Gospel to Catholic priests and their churches would convert to the true Gospel. Other Bible believers, such as the Waldenses, traveled Europe with Bibles in hand preaching the true Gospel more than 400 years before the Protestant Reformation.

While there were and still are today many variations within Baptist Churches these eight characteristics were shared by most Baptist Churches:

Biblical Authority
Baptists believed the Bible was the sole authority for all matters of faith and practice. Some Baptists believed this meant the church may not do anything that is not expressly commanded or shown by example in the New Testament. Today this would preclude modern innovations such as Sunday School, Junior Church, youth programs and the use of musical instruments in worship services. Most Baptists then and now however, believe that this means the church may not do anything that contradicts or violates New Testament commands ,principles or examples.

Autonomy of the Local Church
Baptists believed that each local assembly of believers should be autonomous in its government and discipline. Baptists rejected all forms of church hiarchy. Baptists believed the highest ecclesiastical authority is the Pastor of a local church.

Priesthood of the Believer
Baptists believed that every believer is a priest before God. Pastors do not function as Priests in the Old Testament did. Each believer has equal access to God whether or not they are a Pastor.

Two Ordinances
Baptists believed in only two ordinances - Believer's Baptism by Immersion and the Lord's Supper. Baptists believed that Baptism is to be by immersion in water and that this is only after a profession of faith has been made. Baptism is a picture of Christ's death and burial and is completely separate from Salvation. The Lord's Supper is also a memorial of Christ's death and sacrifice on the cross. Baptists do not believe any special power or "grace" is bestowed through these two ordinances.

Individual Soul Liberty
Baptists believed that each person should have complete freedom of conscience in matters of faith. No one should be forced to believe or adhere to something they do not believe freely. This is why historically Baptists have been hesitant to make or accept creeds and confessions.

Saved, Baptized Church Membership
Baptists believed that only saved and scripturally baptized believers may become members in a local church.

Two Offices
Baptists believed the New Testament only prescribed two offices for the local church - Baptists believed the scriptural references to Elders,Bishops and Overseers all refer to one office, that of Pastor. The only other office prescribed for the New Testament church is that of a Deacon which is subordinate and supportive to the Pastor.

Separation of Church and State
Baptists believed the state should only be involved in the affairs of government and not interfere in matters of religion. Baptists completely rejected church-state government.

The "Radical" Reformers of the Protestant Reformation (wherever you think their roots came from) are the ancestors of modern day Baptist Churches.

Because Baptists were persecuted by Protestants and because they practiced believer's baptism, and rejected any type of formalism in worship there were and still are today many Baptists who do not consider themselves Protestants.

From the beginning of modern Baptist Churches in England there was always a dispute between Calvinistic(Particular) Baptists and Arminian(General) Baptists. The Particular Baptists, following the Salvation theology of the Reformers like Calvin and Luther, considered themselves Protestants although they had many differences with their Protestant brothers in other matters of doctrine and practice. The General Baptists, following the Salvation theology of the European Anabaptists, did not consider themselves Protestants.

One of the last great Calvinistic Baptist preachers was Charles Spurgeon.

Modernist Pastors(including some Baptist Pastors) were denying fundamental doctrines of the faith such as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, inerrancy of the scriptures, the reality of Biblical miracles and the Biblical creation account. Spurgeon vehemently preached against this movement until the time of his death.

Eventually a movement to counter the modernists Pastors was born.

Most historians believe the birth of Fundamentalism could be set at 1876. It was in 1876 that an interdenominational Bible Conference met at Swampscott, Massachusetts to discuss the rising tide of modernism. This was only the beginning of a series of Bible Conferences that ran throughout the late 1800's.

At the Niagara Bible Conference of 1878 a Confession of Faith listed fourteen articles:

1. The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts.
2. The trinity.
3. The creation of man, the fall into sin, and total depravity.
4. The universal transmission of spiritual death from Adam.
5. The necessity of the new birth.
6. Redemption by the blood of Christ.
7. Salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ.
8. The assurance of salvation.
9. The centrality of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures.
10. The true church made up of genuine believers.
11. The personality of the Holy Spirit.
12. The believer’s call to a holy life.
13. The souls of believers go immediately to be with Christ at death.
14. The premillennial second coming of Christ.

A series of writings, called "The Fundamentals" were published between 1910 and 1915 under the funding of a wealthy oil baron Lyman Stewart(1840-1923). His brother Milton assisted as well but Lyman was the driving force behind the Fundamentals. Lyman attended the 1894 Niagara Bible Conference where he first conceived the idea of publishing materials to defend the fundamentals of the faith. This idea became a reality when the first volume of the fundamentals was published in 1910.

The term "Fundamentalist" was coined by Curtis Lee Laws ,editor of the Baptist periodical "Watchman Examiner", in a 1920 editorial, where he wrote that a "Fundamentalist" is one who is willing "to do battle royal for the fundamentals" against theological liberalism.

Today when we as Independent Fundamental Baptists hear the term "interdenominational" the hairs on the back of our neck stand up. We immediately associate it with "ecumenicalism". But they are not the same, the interdenominational nature of the early fundamentalist movement teaches us an important lesson. It is possible to stand shoulder to shoulder with other men who hold to a high view of scripture and the fundamentals of the faith while still affirming our doctrinal distinctives in other areas.

The modern ecumenical movement today, in contrast, calls on us to stand together even with those who do not hold to fundamentals of the faith and would even deny some of the fundamentals of faith. Ecumenicalism also calls on us to drop our doctrinal differences in the interest of an unbiblical unity.

In contrast to the modern ecumenical movement, the interdenominational fundamentalist movement simply called on evangelicals to affirm and defend the fundamentals of the faith while still holding to their denominational distinctives.

It is important to note that included in this interdenominational movement were not only Baptists, but Methodists,Presbyterians,Congregationalists, Lutherans,Reformed Episcopalians and Dutch Reformed.

The unfortunate reality is though, many of the churches who once stood together as fundamentalists, including some Baptists, began to compromise years later.

The term "New Evangelicals" was first used by Harold Ockenga in the late 1940's to refer to himself and a splinter group of fundamentalists. Before this time the term "Evangelical" could be applied to a fundamentalist. But within the fundamentalist movement there were those who thought ecclesiastical(church) separation was wrong. Instead of Bible Believers separating from modernist churches, they proposed a new strategy of "infiltration". The attempt was a miserable failure, for in the past 50 years almost all the churches which took on the "infiltration" approach with the modernist churches have themselves become modernist churches.

The term "Independant" in relation to Independent Fundamental Baptists refers to a dispute over the convention style of cooperation. IFBs do cooperate with one another in areas such as missions. IFBs feel that the autonomy of the local church(a Baptist distinctive) is compromised by the convention style and association style system. For instance in one Baptist Association, the Association can remove a Pastors credentials if his teachings are not in line with the association stands. This is too close to "church hiarchy" for Independants.

So today when you hear the term Independent Fundamental Baptist, here is what it means:
Independent - Not part of a convention or association
Fundamental - Holds to the fundamentals of the faith, separates from modernist churches.
Baptist - holds to Baptist Distinctives.

The fundamentalist movement, although contending for fundamentals faith, was not without it's problems. Almost from the very beginnings of the movement some attitudes formed which were not Biblically based.

Often in Church history heresy results from good Christian men with good intentions. In their zeal to fight against the modernists a mentality arose among many fundamentalists that was anti-science and ani-liberal arts. Creative writing, Artistry and Science began to be discouraged in many(not all) fundamental circles.

Attitudes of arrogance formed with fundamentalism within its early years. Also because fundamentalism was a movement about absolute truths such as the inerrancy of scriptures and salvation through Christ alone a "once size fits all" mentality arose amongst fundamentalists.

Charles Spurgeon smoked a cigar on daily for basis for much of his life. He never "repented" of this because he did not feel it was sinful. In 1874(during the birth of modern fundamentalism) a guest speaker in his pulpit spoke of how he "took his cigar-box before the Lord" and the Lord helped him overcome the sin of smoking.

Charles Spurgeon immediately stood up and said ""Well, dear friends, you know that some men can do to the glory of God what to other men would be sin. And notwithstanding what brother Pentecost has said, I intend to smoke a good cigar to the glory of God before I go to bed to-night. "If anybody can show me in the Bible the command, 'Thou shalt not smoke,' I am ready to keep it; but I haven't found it yet. I find ten commandments, and it's as much as I can do to keep them; and I've no desire to make them into eleven or twelve.

The incident with Charles Spurgeon was published in Christian magazines and news papers. Responding to the uproar Spurgeon wrote in a letter:
"I demur altogether and most positively to the statement that to smoke tobacco is in itself a sin. It may become so, as any other indifferent action may, but as an action it is no sin. Together with hundreds of thousands of my fellow-Christians I have smoked, and, with them, I am under the condemnation of living in habitual sin, if certain accusers are to be believed. As I would not knowingly live even in the smallest violation of the law of God, and sin in the transgression of the law, I will not own to sin when I am not conscious of it. There is growing up in society a Pharisaic system which adds to the commands of God the precepts of men; to that system I will not yield for an hour. The preservation of my liberty may bring upon me the upbraidings of many good men, and the sneers of the self-righteous; but I shall endure both with serenity so long as I feel clear in my conscience before God. The expression "smoking to the glory of God" standing alone has an ill sound, and I do not justify it; but in the sense in which I employed it I still stand to it. No Christian should do anything in which he cannot glorify God; and this may be done, according to Scripture, in eating and drinking and the common actions of life."

The reason I bring up Charles Spurgeon's smoking incident is to illustrate a point that he may not even have realized at the time. Many times we as Christians take our personal battles and try to make them other peoples battles. Lets take one statement of Spurgeons for an example - "I demur altogether and most positively to the statement that to smoke tobacco is in itself a sin. It may become so, as any other indifferent action may, but as an action it is no sin."

Today with all our modern medical knowledge we know that smoking can be bad for the lungs. But different amounts effect people different ways - this is a medical fact. Some people can smoke all their lives and never get lung cancer while others do.

Let me illustrate this point by an example of someone I once worked with. After I graduated from high school I took a job in a brake bonding plant. We would cut brake lining and use adhesives to glue it to the metal shoes. The lining used to be made from aspetos but when modern medical science linked asbestos with lung cancer and other ailements they switched to a non-aspetos lining. The strange thing is that there was a old man(who also smoked) I used work with, probably been cutting lining for about 50 years, and he did not have any lung problems at all. He ended up dying from complications from hip surgery - not lung problems.

I say all this to make this point - anything can become sin. Some things are not sin in and of themselves ,but they can become sin when abused.

I do not smoke, nor would I encourage my children to smoke. But I will not say smoking is a sin. It can become one - if you smoke too much, and then what is too much?

If I say smoking is a sin, then along the same logic I have to say eating red meat is a sin. Why? Because if you eat too much it will eventually clog your arteries and cause a heart attack. But how much red meat is too much? It depends on your genes. But hey, if it can be abused, and can hurt some people than it must be wrong right?

I realize at this point many Christians (including fundamentalists) will say the logic above could be used to justify just about anything. Lets legalize drugs then right? That is not what I am saying at all. There are certain times when the abuses of a small minority affect society as a whole and they must be addressed. Not to get on drugs but there is a difference between drugs, smoking cigars and cigarettes and eating red meat and I am not going to get into that huge topic here.

Another thing I would like to point out, is that the rise of this new "Pharisaic system" as Spurgeon put it, was really just a revival of earlier Christian asceticism(an abstinent life,renunciation of pleasure). The other thing Spurgeon did not realize, is that he himself was part of this system as he preached against going to the shows and other amusements. I admire Spurgeon a lot, and I understand that it is difficult many times to see our own inconsistencies. But he was really on to something here with the "Pharisaic system", if only he would have looked into it deeper.

Since the early church theologians like Clement of Alexandria and Augustine recognized "dispensations" or distinctions in the scriptures. These where different eras where God dealt with men differently. These eras have been divided and differently by hundreds of scholars over the past 2000 years.

"Systematic Theology" as the term is used today refers to a way of systemizing the Bible for consistent application and to get the "big picture" of what the Bible is saying. Systematic theologies help us to understand what laws and rules of the Bible apply to us today as believers and what were temporary laws for specific periods.

One's "Systematic Theology" also greatly affects how they see prophecy unfolding in the scriptures as well as their view of what constitutes the Church.

During the Bible Conferences of the late 1800's(where modern fundamentalism had its birth) a new systematic theological system was propagated.

This system, called "Dispensational Theology", was based on the ideas and writings of a Plymouth Brethren pastor named John Darby(1800-1882). The attraction to many fundamentalists of this new system was that it viewed prophecy in a very literal fashion. One of the weakness of this system as with many others was and still is, that it did not have a consistent literal approach to prophecy especially in New Testament passages.

Many times (and I will discuss this in more detail in upcoming articles), Dispensational Theology distorts or bends New Testament prophetic passages to fit what they believe is a literal reading of Old Testament prophecies.

Dispensational Theology did have its strong points though, in that it viewed the millennium as a literal future 1000 year reign of Christ. It also viewed the tribulation as a literal future 7 year period.

Where Dispensational Theology miserably fell short of scripture was its new distinction between Israel and Church. Dispensational Theology rejected the Historic Premillenial position that the saints of all ages are a part of the body of Christ.

They instead insisted that there were two peoples of God, one set before Christ(Old Testament Saints) and one after(New Testament Saints). According the new Dispensational Theological system, only those saints after Christ could rightly be called the church.

The tribulation was in their view, the time of Jacob's trouble, meaning Israel and not the New Testament Saints (or as they redefined it, the church).

It was in Dispensational theology that for the first time, Christians widely accepted a system that separated the second coming of Christ into two parts - The pretribulational,"secret", rapture of the church and the after the tribulation the glorious second coming of Christ with his church.

The new Dispensational brand of Premillenialism spread throughout North America in large part due to the prophecy conferences as well as the Scofield Study Bible.

Cyrus Ingerson Scofield(1843-1921) developed the first dispensational study Bible and published it in 1909. This study Bible can be credited with the wide spread of Dispensationalism throughout America. Its notes changed the average American's view on prophecy. Not long after the Scofield Bible was published, it became the standard Bible used in almost all Fundamentalist Churches.

Today the Dispensational Theological System is so entrenched in fundamentalist churches that to question it, is the same as questioning the fundamentals of the faith.

KJV Onlyism refers to a movement within fundamentalism that believes the 7th edition of the 9th translation of the Bible in English(The King James Version 1769 Cambridge Edition) is the preserved Word of God.

When they call the KJV the "preserved Word of God" they mean that it is the standard by which all translations (or previous editions of itself) and manuscript copies of the Bible must be judged as valid. For instance, if a Greek manuscript has a different reading than that in the King James Version it is wrong and must be discarded. If a reading in an earlier or later translation reads differently than the KJV it is wrong. If the KJV version has any reading or phrase not found in any Greek manuscript than it is regarded as specially preserved by God. The original which contained the phrase in question was simply lost.

While there have been previously men who argued for or against certain Greek texts none of them argued for perfect, inerrant translations before 1930 when a Seventh-day Adventist theology professor, Benjamin G. Wilkinson, wrote a book entitled "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated".

In his book he asserted the idea not only that the particular collection of Greek texts underlying the KJV were providentially protected, he also asserted that the translation itself was as well.

Wilkinson was the first to apply Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." specifically to the KJV.

What others contended at that time and since, is that the "them" referred to in verse 7 refers to God preserving the faithful from the wicked. Look at the verses Wilkinson and many KJV only advocates use today in their full context: Psalm 12(KJV)

1 Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

The Lord makes a promise in verse 5, to take up the cause of the poor and needy against those who oppress them, then David goes on to say in verse 6 that the Lords words are trustworthy and pure, and that he would preserve "them" referring to the oppressed from this "generation" - those who would throughout time oppress the weak forever. The verses used by Wilkinson, when seen in their proper context, have nothing whatsover to do with translational or manuscript preservation.

In 1955, J.J Ray, a missionary and Bible teacher, took up Wilkinson's cause in a book he entitled "God Wrote Only One Bible". J.J. Ray quoted heavily from Wilkinson's work.

In the 1960's and 1970's the KJV movement came to be what we know it as today. In 1970 David Otis Fuller, a Baptist pastor, published his book "Which Bible?". He was inspired to write his book after reading J.J. Rays "God Wrote Only One Bible".

Another writer on the subject, who would later be known as the most radical KJV only advocate was Peter Ruckman. After being inspired by J.J. Rays "God Wrote Only One Bible" he published his first book in 1964 called "The Bible Babel". Ruckman was the first KJV only proponent to claim the KJV never had a copyright - however historically false this was. He was also the first KJV proponent to deny the exist of The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament).

Today in 2003, some 70 years after the first book on the subject, KJV Onlyism has literally torn fundamentalism in two. Fundamentalist colleges which used to stand together are foes of one another due to this issue. Bible preaching Churches have split because of this issue. The KJV only movement will be covered in much more detail in my Bible translations area. Here I will put together my own research into the history of the Bible and translations as well as address the heresies of KJV Onlyism.

Billy Sunday(1862-1935), the famous evangelist of the early 1900's(1893 to 1935) is a prime example of what I am talking about. He took his personal battle with alchohal and made it the nations battle. He could also be credited with making fundamentalism into what it is today in many respects. Billy Sunday was a major contributing factor in the prohibition movement.
From his sermon entitled "Booze"
"Whiskey is all right in its place -- but its place is hell."

From his sermon entitled "Backsliding"
"I tell you I never saw a drinking, dancing, card playing Christian who amounted to anything. The dance is a quagmire of wreckage. It's as rotten as hell. You wait until I get at it."

From his sermon entitled "Theater, Cards and Dance"
"It is almost impossible to find in the theater decency and purity.

You sow bridge whist and auction pitch and five hundred in the home and you reap a crop of gamblers. You sow the dance and the ballroom and you reap a crop of brothels.

You sow saloons and you reap a harvest of drunkards.

You must want a lot of prostitutes or you wouldn't sow dances; you must want a lot of vomiting, puking drunkards or you wouldn't sow saloons, and you must want a bunch of gamblers or you wouldn't play cards in your homes.

If you have any cards in your home, you had better throw them in the furnace when you get back there or else throw your Bibles in the furnace. The two won't mix. Oh, you need not gasp! I am handing it to you straight! There is no use having Bibles around your house if you are going to make a joke of His Word by playing bridge."

It was during Billy Sunday's era that Fundamentalism grew into something much more than a defense of the fundamentals of faith. It went from preaching against evolution to preaching against women wearing red lipstick. It went from preaching against those who denied the deity of Christ to preaching against those who went to theaters. It went from preaching against those who denied the virgin birth to preaching against those who played cards in their homes.

It went from a movement concerned about defending historic Christian values to a movement that stood for Old Fashioned American values as it understood them. Instead of just being opposed to modernistic theology, it became opposed to modern life in general. It began to teach a new form of Christian asceticism(an abstinent life,renunciation of pleasure)

Because Billy Sunday was a former baseball player, and even used sports for sermon illustrations, professional sports became the sacred cow amongst fundamentalists. This is why today, many fundamentalist preachers can go to a professional football game and sit in the stands with beer drinking, cussing fans while the cheerleaders dance around below and think it is different than going to a movie theater. I am not saying going to professional football games is wrong, I am saying it is the same as going to a movie theater.

The influence of early 20th century fundamentalists like Billy Sunday can still be felt today. Take for instance, Fred Moritz's book "Contending for the Faith". While I agree with much in his book he displays the errors that crept into fundamentalism in the early 1900's.

"Today's fundamentalist preachers must declare God's holiness and urge believers to imitate it in their lifestyles(I Peter 1:15). Fundamentalists can look to former generations for historical example ... Similarly, lasciviousness in practice grows out of the denial of Christ's deity and lordship... Card playing still boasts its old sinful origin ,dancing is more sensual than ever, and Hollywood entertainment grows ever more corrupt. Politicians and the pope condemn the film industry, while Christians rent videos and watch the broadcast channels, seemingly without conscience. "Wine is", still, "a mocker"...Those who advocate godlessness in living are as much the foes of the faith as are those who deny the deity and lordship of Christ."
- Pgs 125-126,"Contending for the Faith"

So we can see the metamorphosis. Many Fundamentalists like Fred Moritz now not only condemn (which we should) those who call themselves Christians and deny the deity of Christ - they also condemn and lump in as the same those Christians who play cards, dance, rent videos or go to shows and drink alchohal.

I will stop here for a little clarification. I agree with Mr. Moritz and fundamentalists like him that Hollywood produces more filth than it ever did today. The lines are being crossed on Television every day with new reality shows that allow people to engage in acts that never would have been tolerated before.

But having said that, there are still shows which a Christian can watch in good conscience. We must be more discerning than ever, but this does not mean we throw out the baby with the bath water.

I will go into more detail on standards subjects in later papers but here is an example of how faulty some fundamentalist's reasoning is. They say if a movie has one swear word or one act that it is unbiblical then we must turn it off. Yet these same fundamentalists who say this will go to a football game and sit in the stands with cussing, beer drinking fans and cheerleaders prancing around below them. "I am going to watch the game" they say, I did not come to hear the cussing and see the other things that are wrong.

I have no problem with a Christian going to a football game, but the same thing applies to me when I go to a movie theater. For instance, if I watch a murder mystery there may be an occasional cussword (if it is every other word then I will leave) and I may see some things in this movie that I do not agree with as a Christian. But am I going to the show for things I disagree with, or am I going for the story just as the Christian football fan goes for the game and not the cheerleading ,cussing and drunkenness.

Sometimes though, the core of the story itself is unbiblical, and then I would not go to such a movie.

We as Christians live in a sin cursed world. When we are at a football game or NASCAR track, or a Movie Theater we can expect to see the sin of the world. When people at football games get drunk and cuss they are only acting on their job description as a fallen sinner. Likewise, when the actors in a movie cuss or say things that we as Christians would disagree with they are only acting on their job description as a fallen sinner.

This does not mean we should imitate such behavior. And certainly there are movies and even other amusements we should oppose and boycott altogether.

I have given the above history to bring us to this point. I believe fundamentalism at its core is good. The defense of the fundamentals of faith is not only an admirable task, it is a necessary one. Yet fundamentalists have gotten so side tracked over disputable leisure issues and other non-fundamental issues that they have lost sight of the bigger picture.