"Sola Scriptura is not really valued by the movers and shakers in the [IFB] movement"

[Reforming Baptist] Another lesson I learned these past months is that the IFB or Fundamentalist movement, network, culture (whatever you want to call it) is not going to be revived or reformed. Those loyal to it cannot and will not recognize the inherent and fundamental defects of the movement.

I agree that God doesn’t revive movements, but people, and that those loyal to a movement instead of Scripture will deny the defects in anything they are a part of, but I disagree that problems in IFBism are ‘inherent’ or ‘fundamental’ to the movement. Extremists are responsible for IFBism becoming a caricature, but the origins of IFBism are commendable, and a stable core is IMO still the majority, however silent they may have been.

Maybe the ‘young Fundies’ and ‘emerging middle’ are largely made up of those who have stopped being silent. It’s a theory- and I like it. :D

I’m more in agreement Bro. Hayton that there is a positive future for IFBs. Just because there is a used car salesman with a bad comb-over screaming long and loud from your tv set doesn’t mean he actually sells the most cars. ;) I’ve attended and visited dozens of IFB churches over the years, and met many people who never heard of Hyles, and while they are familiar with BJU, they don’t where it is, or its history, or anyone who graduated from there. IFBism is a much bigger pond than just BJU and SotL.

[Susan R] SNIP
IFBism is a much bigger pond than just BJU and SotL.

I agree anyone who conflates SotL and the East Texas branch of IFBdom with the whole is in grave error. Even using BJU as a measuring stick leads to error. One needs to take into consideration, the products of Northland. Maranatha, Central\Pillsbury, International Baptist College, Calvary(Lansdale), and other schools I have missed. Not to mention with BJ grads you’ve got to consider when did they graduate. A man who graduated under Sr. (and there’s not many of them left in the active ministry) is different from those who graduated under Jr.; the same goes for III’s and Steven’s (though it will be a few years to see what the last are like).

I posted the filing (came in via the Contact form)

As the statement: “Sola Scriptura is not really valued by the movers and shakers in the [IFB] movement”, my observations:

• There is no monolithic IFB movement. FB’s are by nature independent to an extent.
  
• I’m not sure who the “movers and shakers” are …
  
• But the men I know personally who would call themselves Fundamental Baptists (like my own Pastor!) I regard as having a high view of Scripture. If Central Seminary is FB … it values “Sola Scriptura”. I would say the same about FFBC (Ankeny) and Northland
  
• Would one consider Mark Minnink a FB? Or John Vaughn? (I would!). These men have a high view of Scripture - no doubt in my mind! Same with Tim Jordan! Dave Doran!
  
• I would suppose Don Johnson is perhaps the most conservative guy on S/I (and Don I really appreciate you!). Would I regard him as a FB? Yes. Does he have a high view of Scripture … without a doubt!
  

Are there crazytown FBs? (al la Schaap). Yup!

And that’s the very problem I have with the term fundamentalist is that it encompasses the Whac-A-Mole varieties as well as the ones I esteem.

Every family has a crazy aunt or uncle, every group has its wackos. I suppose we all have a limit that when it is breached we stop attending the family reunions or applying a label. I am sure there were some Democrats last week that were not all that enthusiastic to about being identified with their political party because of Anthony Weiner. But is he really representative of the underlying beliefs of that political party? I don’t think so, and his actions had little to do with his political views, and were a result of his moral compass spending time in the Bermuda Triangle.

I think there comes a time when we have to separate the issues- and an ideology is not responsible for those who use it to abuse it.

My dh and I were just having a conversation about how, as Christians, we are to reproduce, and a healthy organism can bring forth healthy offspring of its kind- but what comes out of many churches and seminaries are not legitimate offspring, but clones.

Jim,
I agree with what you’ve mentioned in the bullet points.
From my perspective, it seems to be that the majority of the (IFB) would be more identified with this circus: http://www.fundamentalforums.com/.
I hope I’m wrong, but I just don’t see Minnick, Doran, Bauder and company being the majority who are the defining voices of fundamentalism. What they believe is much more in line with the Gospel Coalition or T4G resemble. Whenever, I am personally looking for an IFB church to attend in any given town in the USA, I hardly find churches that resemble Northland, Central, Detroit, etc.. They are usually part of the circus as linked above. I suppose that is what I am saying has no hope of reform. It can only continue to mutate and degenerate.

[WilliamD] Jim,
…From my perspective, it seems to be that the majority of the (IFB) would be more identified with this circus: http://www.fundamentalforums.com/.
I hope I’m wrong, but I just don’t see Minnick, Doran, Bauder and company being the majority who are the defining voices of fundamentalism. …Whenever, I am personally looking for an IFB church to attend in any given town in the USA, I hardly find churches that resemble Northland, Central, Detroit, etc.. They are usually part of the circus as linked above. I suppose that is what I am saying has no hope of reform. It can only continue to mutate and degenerate.

The “circus” as mentioned above (represented by the likes of FBC Hammond, etc.) is merely a pimple on the face of IFB as a whole—very visible and attention grabbing; certainly infected; but hardly representative of the health of the body.

My circle of independents if fairly broad. Easily 90% have (and have had for as long as I can remember) what I consider to be a high view of Scripture.

[WilliamD] Jim,
I agree with what you’ve mentioned in the bullet points.
From my perspective, it seems to be that the majority of the (IFB) would be more identified with this circus: http://www.fundamentalforums.com/.
I hope I’m wrong, but I just don’t see Minnick, Doran, Bauder and company being the majority who are the defining voices of fundamentalism. What they believe is much more in line with the Gospel Coalition or T4G resemble. Whenever, I am personally looking for an IFB church to attend in any given town in the USA, I hardly find churches that resemble Northland, Central, Detroit, etc.. They are usually part of the circus as linked above. I suppose that is what I am saying has no hope of reform. It can only continue to mutate and degenerate.

Will,

I believe you. Every traveling evangelist I know says that the circus set outnumber the rest by a sizable margin, at least among those who call themselves Fundamentalist. The sane ones seem to be largely avoiding the name here. It’s sure true in Michigan. But nobody at SI seems to believe me when I say this. I wish you better luck persuading them than I have had. It’s time to rename. Plug and abandon the old name. Quite frankly, it might be better to move on past “movement-think” anyway. Though I’m not sure what that means entirely.

A question though. I took your statement about sola scriptura not being valued by the movers and shakes in the movement in a particular way, and I’m curious if that is the way you meant it. In my journey away from my roots (though never my Lord), I have found that the IFB leaders value their culture and traditions as much as they do Scripture. This has the dual effect of elevating their culture and traditions to a level on par with Scripture, and pulling the Scriptures down to the level of their culture and traditions. This, I have always felt, is a failure in sola scriptura. Examples are numerous. But let a discussion start about any of the Fundy cultural traditions and watch the extra-biblical reasoning and selected proof-texting using verses out of context emerge. The struggle is to make it look like sola scriptura is being honored, when the real principle for some seems to be “what we’ve done was right all along”. And many other such like things we do (Mark 7:8). This is why SI has been so valuable. Anyone can chime in and point out the fallacy of such constructs.

Am I understanding you correctly about the lack of value placed on sola scriptura?

Mike D

But nobody at SI seems to believe me when I say this.

I don’t disbelieve it.

But the statement “the movers and shakers of IFB don’t value sola scriptura” is not the same as the statement “the majority of people who claim to be IFB don’t value sola scriptura.”
The generalization is pretty useless, in any case.
As folks have pointed out already, it depends on…

• Who are the “movers and shakers”?
  
• What is “IFB”?
  
• What are we looking at that indicates a lack of value attached to sola scripura?
  

More to the point, what difference does it make? The people who value the SS principle value it, and the people who don’t, don’t. The former describe themselves in a variety of ways and the latter do as well.

If there ever was a consensus on what “IFB” is, that day has long passed.

Let me suggest a more useful generalization: “Not enough Christian leaders value the sola scriptura princple as much as they should.” This has probably always been an accurate statement. And when we ask “What can we do about that?” the answer is the same as it’s always been, too.

… I guess what I’m saying is that IMO, “IFB” is irrelevant. All the serious guys I know don’t care if you claim that label or not. Though several of them do claim it, they do not attach great importance to it. What they’re about is doing ministry for the glory of God and diligently seeking faithfulness to His word in how, why and what they do. For some “independent, fundamental Baptist” is a term they believe describes them well. For others, not. For all, the descriptive stuff and “affiliations” and all that is way, way down their list of priorities.

[RPittman] It is wrong, I think, to accuse these IFB brethren of not valuing Scripture, although this is their professed belief, when it is really a matter of disagreement between them and us whether they are rightly dividing and applying Scripture. No one can deny their sincere belief that they are being true to Scripture.

This is true, Brother Pittman, and yet….

The same could be said about many conservative evangelicals, couldn’t it? They profess and sincerely believe they are being true to Scripture. It’s a disagreement on rightly dividing and applying.

I’m a separatist, and I can’t in good conscience get too involved with non-separatists, even when they sincerely belief that their non-separatism is true to Scriptural teaching on unity.

At some point, despite sincere belief, we have to say that people aren’t really practicing consistent with “sola Scriptura”, right? Just like we have to say that, despite the sincere belief of evangelicals, they are mistaken. And their error impacts our relationship with them in similar ways as if they were just rejecting truth. As I’m sure you’ll agree, sincerity isn’t good enough.

So what does sincerity mean? First, we should be careful to not judge too harshly (whether the IFB “movers and shakers”, whoever they are, or CEs). Assess actions, but don’t harshly judge motives. Second, it is totally unprofitable to bring an accusation against someone which they will immediately reject because it isn’t what they sincerely believe. Don’t waste your time and theirs. Third, get the accusation right — in most cases it is a problem of “rightly dividing and applying”. Fourth, feel free to describe the impact of the problem. It is entirely appropriate to go on and add that the effect is just the same as if someone were to reject sola Scriptura.

But little is to be gained by saying people do reject SS, contra to their sincere belief in it. That just becomes Internet bomb-throwing. It’s uncharitable. It’s undoubtedly true of some. A blanket accusation is not true, and thus counter-productive.

[RPittman] I don’t understand why this argument is made to me. I have never denied that CEs believe the Scriptures but I have disagreed on their points of interpretation and application.

Perhaps it wasn’t arguing against you, but ruminating about/developing what I thought was a good point you had made in this discussion? :)

I think the general thrust of my comment was that you’d made a good point about sincerity, and that it matters to an extent in how we respond.

Not every comment is an argument, after all. ;)

[RPittman] Mike, I think you are describing phenomena that exists but you are missing a few pieces of the puzzle. The term sola scriptura sometimes creates a false impression that everything we believe, teach, practice or preach is based directly on Scripture.

But if we proclaim with equal certainty that which is from Scripture and that which is not, we have denigrated the Scriptures and elevated our tradition, making them equal. This becomes an attack on sola scriptura.

Aaron B. wrote
Who are the “movers and shakers”?
What is “IFB”?
What are we looking at that indicates a lack of value attached to sola scripura?

When I wrote my blog post, there are certainly specifics that I have in mind that I didn’t take time to address. I didn’t address them because my blog had been all about addressing them for the last four years and I am not going to keep doing that because it’s of no use to do so.

When I refer to “movers and shakers” I am referring to those with the most influence and the most followers. The IFB that I am most familiar with and that seems to have the overwhelming majority of churches and schools are those that would be in this www.fundamentalforums.com] group . As I mentioned in reply to Jim Peet earlier, that wouldn’t necessarily be including the good faithful expositors and theologians he mentioned.

Aaron asked: “What is IFB?”
Let me give you a definition as published by this IFB leader: http://www.strivingtogether.com/products/Church-Still-Works.html book

“…Independent Baptists are a large group that contains dozens of subsets. Some of those subsets are affiliated with Bible colleges, others with papers and publications. Some are part of nationwide conferences, while others identify more readily with particular doctrines and geographies. Some subsets cross over into other subsets…who are the independent Baptists? where did we come from?…Independent Baptist is not a denomination, but rather a family - a band of brothers. Like most brothers, we disagree with each other from time to time…As a group, we do not identify with modern day protestant orthodoxy or the non-denominational evangelical movement…our associations are loose, but our biblically held convictions are distinct…There are many other adjectives we use to describe ourselves - premillennial, soul winning, separated and Bible believing. We like labels. We like people to know what we are and where we stand….In addition, the following doctrines are held as essential tests of fellowship by some independent Baptists and not by others:
Eschatology
Bible Versions
Soul Winning
Church tradition
Personal Separation
Dress Standards
Musical Styles
Ecclesiastical separation

…Considering all this, one of the great things about being independent is that we can fellowship with whom we want as long as we are willing to accept the consequences. The only real outside control on us is the disdain or delight of our brothers. Some in our ranks have had an un approachable spirit which has resulted in the tendency to of others to make grievances public rather than handle them privately….Our research indicates we number 2,474,200…About one out of every 125 people in America is an independent Baptist…By sorting through a variety of mailing lists and sources, we were able to secure the names of 13,719 unique Independent Baptist congregations in America.”

excerpts from pages: xiv,5-15

Aaron asked: What are we looking at that indicates a lack of value attached to sola scripura?

Here’s a few:

Church discipline is rarely exercised according to Matthew 18 if practiced at all. One major leader who is chancellor of a Bible college personally told me that “Church discipline doesn’t work for us at our church, you can do what you like in yours, but we’ve decided not to go that direction.” That is the attitude in many IFB churches. The few that do practice it show up on the news like the Chuck Phelps incident. Totally botched up. And I’m sure there are a few who have done it right and have had God bless their churches as a result.

Another issue is the KJVO issue. The whole KJVO controversy that defines the majority of IFB churches is a result of people who hold to extra-biblical beliefs about what the Bible says about itself and hold those teachings to be doctrine which are nothing more than the commandments of men.

Some of the things listed like dress standards which are not always specifically laid out in scripture are “essential” tests of fellowship. This is a disregard for Sola Scriptura, because the authority is not only in the Bible, but in the application of Biblical principle that is considered essential.

Mike Durning,
You asked:

“A question though. I took your statement about sola scriptura not being valued by the movers and shakes in the movement in a particular way, and I’m curious if that is the way you meant it. In my journey away from my roots (though never my Lord), I have found that the IFB leaders value their culture and traditions as much as they do Scripture. This has the dual effect of elevating their culture and traditions to a level on par with Scripture, and pulling the Scriptures down to the level of their culture and traditions. This, I have always felt, is a failure in sola scriptura. Examples are numerous. But let a discussion start about any of the Fundy cultural traditions and watch the extra-biblical reasoning and selected proof-texting using verses out of context emerge. The struggle is to make it look like sola scriptura is being honored, when the real principle for some seems to be “what we’ve done was right all along”. And many other such like things we do (Mark 7:8). This is why SI has been so valuable. Anyone can chime in and point out the fallacy of such constructs.”

That is exactly what I am talking about. All the so called claims of being “Bible-Believing (IE: Sola Scriptura)” go out the window in my opinion when you confront a well known pastor who is willfully disobedient to carry out church discipline because “it doesn’t work for us” without scriptural explanation.

Of course, this is just one example and of course, not everyone who is IFB is guilty, don’t paint with a broad brush, blah blah blah, yada yada yada…
Anyway, That’s my two cents about my two cents.

I’m going to offer some thoughts on this, and use modesty as an example-

[WilliamD] Some of the things listed like dress standards which are not always specifically laid out in scripture are “essential” tests of fellowship. This is a disregard for Sola Scriptura, because the authority is not only in the Bible, but in the application of Biblical principle that is considered essential.

Hypothetical- a local pastor’s wife dresses like she charges by the hour. Does that not tell you something about her character, and also the character of her husband? It isn’t just because of the apparel itself, but what it reveals about the person who chose to purchase that item, put it on, look in a mirror, and say “I make this look good.” What we do reveals who we are. Man does look on the outward appearance. Let’s get over that already and move on.

Personally, I think church leadership and staff have a responsibility to have high standards in every area of their lives, including how they present themselves in their behavior, speech, and dress. So I’m all for ‘dress standards’ for those who are going to be looked at as examples to the flock. And no- modest does not equal a suit & tie, or hose and heels. It can be as simple as wearing clothes that don’t result in everyone around you being flashed and mooned every time you sit down, bend over, or raise an arm.

Even churches who say they don’t have dress standards have dress standards, because everyone draws the line somewhere. It isn’t wrong IMO to disciple the folks on issues like modesty and propriety of dress and behavior. I do realize that there is backlash from improper teaching on these issues, which is unfortunate, because now men and women who’ve made certain choices in order to try to be modest in their appearance suddenly find themselves being treated with disdain, because ‘obviously’ they are ‘legalists’. How is that better? Now we can’t approach the subject at all for fear of being lumped in with arrogant, uncouth extremists?

Teaching on modesty is part of Scripture, and deserves to be taught and practiced. The problem is that different people have decided what ‘modest’ means, and everyone is far too busy criticizing everyone else’s definition rather than honestly asking oneself why they are choosing to look and act and dress a certain way, letting God work on their heart, and then acting in obedience to what they believe God would have them do- which is practicing spiritual discernment and maturity, as well as consideration of one’s brothers and sisters in Christ. Any time I exercise my liberty while disregarding my brother, I am not respecting sola scriptura.

Personally, I don’t believe any of this is just an IFB problem- it’s a human nature problem. Every group with a core set of beliefs is going to have issues with balancing the emphasis of those beliefs. I see the same issues in the homeschool groups, book clubs, PTAs, city council meetings, and local business networking associations I attend. We must always examine our attitudes and our liberty for pride, contempt, and selfishness. We as individuals as well as church leadership must be humble enough to right the boat when we realize it’s leaning too far to one side or the other.

More and more I am convinced that pointing fingers does squat to resolve these dilemmas, because 9/10, we don’t have a relationship with those we are pointing at, and if they really are seriously out of kilter, they don’t give a rat’s eyelash what we think anyway.

[Susan R] Hypothetical- a local pastor’s wife dresses like she charges by the hour. Does that not tell you something about her character, and also the character of her husband? It isn’t just because of the apparel itself, but what it reveals about the person who chose to purchase that item, put it on, look in a mirror, and say “I make this look good.” What we do reveals who we are. Man does look on the outward appearance. Let’s get over that already and move on.

Personally, I think church leadership and staff have a responsibility to have high standards in every area of their lives, including how they present themselves in their behavior, speech, and dress. So I’m all for ‘dress standards’ for those who are going to be looked at as examples to the flock. And no- modest does not equal a suit & tie, or hose and heels. It can be as simple as wearing clothes that don’t result in everyone around you being flashed and mooned every time you sit down, bend over, or raise an arm.

Susan, God does look on the heart. And it should be our emphasis too. As you observe, the choices speak to character, spiritual vs. carnal values, etc. So wouldn’t implementing a rule cut us off from the information about where they really were in their walk with God? That’s why it was so hard at Christian High School and college. You couldn’t tell who was on God’s side and who was on the Devil’s because all the players wore the same uniform.

Quite frankly, I think dress standards reverse the flow. We don’t know their hearts in areas like modesty, vanity, etc., so we can’t address the issues as well. My standard line is “Why do you even want to wear that?” or “Why do you want a tattoo?” This provokes a conversation about motives, values, etc. While this won’t always lead 100% of the time to a change of mind, it begins the process of people questioning their own motives. Ideally, they begin to analyze why they do what they do, and then submit that area to the Lord.

[Susan R] Even churches who say they don’t have dress standards have dress standards, because everyone draws the line somewhere. It isn’t wrong IMO to disciple the folks on issues like modesty and propriety of dress and behavior. I do realize that there is backlash from improper teaching on these issues, which is unfortunate, because now men and women who’ve made certain choices in order to try to be modest in their appearance suddenly find themselves being treated with disdain, because ‘obviously’ they are ‘legalists’. How is that better? Now we can’t approach the subject at all for fear of being lumped in with arrogant, uncouth extremists?

Teaching on modesty is Scriptural. As is teaching against unisex styles – which has become strangely relevant again after disappearing as an issue for a few decades. But enforcing a particular application (which invariably means one person’s thoughts) of the principles of modesty and distinct gender identification is far beyond that – and may be far beyond the Scripture’s authority we hold in our hands as leaders.

At our church, we don’t have dress codes. We teach the Bible on things like modesty, etc. And on the rare occasions there is a problem, we take someone aside and talk to them privately about the underlying spiritual issues.

I find it far more effective to ask provoking questions than to enforce rules. I think that’s what you’re getting at here:

[Susan R] Teaching on modesty is part of Scripture, and deserves to be taught and practiced. The problem is that different people have decided what ‘modest’ means, and everyone is far too busy criticizing everyone else’s definition rather than honestly asking oneself why they are choosing to look and act and dress a certain way, letting God work on their heart, and then acting in obedience to what they believe God would have them do- which is practicing spiritual discernment and maturity, as well as consideration of one’s brothers and sisters in Christ. Any time I exercise my liberty while disregarding my brother, I am not respecting sola scriptura.

So, let us teach spiritual discernment and maturity. Let us not mandate a particular application – a system that I believe stands in the way of the maturation process.

[Susan R] Personally, I don’t believe any of this is just an IFB problem- it’s a human nature problem. Every group with a core set of beliefs is going to have issues with balancing the emphasis of those beliefs. I see the same issues in the homeschool groups, book clubs, PTAs, city council meetings, and local business networking associations I attend. We must always examine our attitudes and our liberty for pride, contempt, and selfishness. We as individuals as well as church leadership must be humble enough to right the boat when we realize it’s leaning too far to one side or the other.

We live in a terribly informal age. Teenagers go to school in what we used to call pajamas. Guys show up at awards shows in shorts and a wife-beater.

It is cultural. Alongside modesty and gender distinction as principles, we must also teach appropriateness, respect for setting, etc. There are some great passages for that too.

Relating all this to the thread, I would say this: teaching a Bible principle as Scripture honors sola scriptura. Enforcing a rule based on an application of Scripture that you made and teaching that obedience to that application is God’s law or is a spiritual deed dishonors sola scriptura.

[Mike Durning]
Relating all this to the thread, I would say this: teaching a Bible principle as Scripture honors sola scriptura. Enforcing a rule based on an application of Scripture that you made and teaching that obedience to that application is God’s law or is a spiritual deed dishonors sola scriptura.

Fantastic, Mike. I’d love to write an article some time on the Protestant Reformers and the issue of magisterial vs. ministerial authority. Basically, Rome claims magisterial authority over faith and morals. Basically, the magisterium can pronounce what is true and false, right and wrong, in the gaps left by Scripture. This often shows up in prohibitions. Forbidding birth control and clerical marriage comes to mind here. In my interaction with contemporary Catholics, I find that it is precisely this magisterial authority that they find appealing in their religion. They want someone to declare authoritatively and as exhaustively as possible what they may and may not do.

On the other hand, the Protestant Reformers, particularly on the Calvinist side, emphasized that the church has only ministerial authority over faith and morals. As faithful servants of Christ, we may declare only what he has declared, no less and no more. To create a new rule or principle not found in Scripture is to overstep one’s authority, to make oneself a master rather than a servant of the Scripture. Now, the Protestants did believe in using syllogistic reasoning to apply Scriptural principles to specific cases, but they did NOT approve (in theory) of extrapolating new general principles. So, a confessional Protestant could, for instance, declare a particular movie wicked. He could not pass a prohibition against movies in general, especially not under the guise of “wisdom” or “safety.”

Ministerial authority does not apply only to prohibitions. The church also cannot add new Christian duties. Enforced feasts, fasts, and clerical garments were hot issues in the Reformation. Today, any pastor that tells his people they “must” attend church services not on the Lord’s Day or “must” employ a certain devotional scheme or “must” wear a certain kind of attire to church is overstepping his authority as minister.