Archive

Archive for the ‘Independent Fundamental Baptist Church’ Category

‘Sin Breaks Fellowship’ Deception

August 3rd, 2009 41 comments

A faithful reader asked the question; “Does the IFB incorrectly teach that the Believer loses fellowship with God when he/she sins?”. That question got me thinking about the topic of losing fellowship with God and it brought up some memories of what I was taught in the IFB church. I’ve come to the conclusion that this is yet another major error in the exegesis of scripture committed by the IFB.

Unfortunately, this concept of losing fellowship with Christ when the Believer sins is pervasive among the teachings of most modern Christian denominations. The teaching goes something like this: When a Believer sins he/she loses fellowship with Christ. If a Believer wants to restore that lost fellowship, he/she needs to repent of his/her sin and be forgiven.

In my personal experience with the IFB I was taught this and the idea that we lose fellowship with Christ when we sin has always troubled me. I remember as a child and teen feeling extremely conscientious about my behavior and thoughts because I was terrified of “losing fellowship with Christ.” In my mind the only way to have fellowship with Christ was to be in a constant state of prayer for forgiveness. I remember trying so hard to be in a constant state of prayer so that I restored fellowship with God as quickly as possible. It became exhausting, but because of the fear of “breaking fellowship with God” I kept on confessing every single thing I did that was sinful. I was even careful enough to confess things which I thought may be sins so that I didn’t lose fellowship with God. I remember that my prayers consumed me because there was always something I had to ask forgiveness for such as having an impure thought, a poor attitude, delayed obedience, not doing my best in school, being lazy, and the list went on forever. It was exhausting and I never felt that I had the time or capacity for anything other than asking for forgiveness.

I remember thinking that it would be more practical to wait till a certain time of the day to ask forgiveness, but as I went throughout my day I couldn’t help but focus on all the wrong things I was doing. I didn’t want to wait until that time of day when I confessed my sins up until that point because I didn’t want to be ‘out of fellowship’ with God for that length of time. Freedom came when I realized how wrong this idea of “losing fellowship with God when we sin” is.

Someone once scolded me, when discussing this issue, that I was sacrificing the truth for the convenience of not having to pray constantly and that I needed to work on my behavior rather than try to change what the scripture teaches (that we lose fellowship with God when we sin).

As I contemplated what this person was saying I came up with only 4 available options:

Option 1 was to continue living my life consumed by all the wrong I was doing and remain in a constant state of prayer so as to maintain as much fellowship with God as possible. This option wasn’t working for me and was becoming so burdensome that trying to maintain fellowship itself because a road block to maintaining fellowship.

Option 2 was to just give up all together and forget about fellowship with God since it was impossible for me to do what was necessary to maintain fellowship with God. This option wasn’t a good one for me since I value my relationship with God.

Option 3 was to not worry about constantly trying to maintain fellowship with God and just go through my day and if I sinned then so be it, I would confess it later. This option didn’t appeal to me because, like I said earlier, I didn’t want to be out of fellowship with God for the day. After all what good is it to be out of fellowship with God during the day and then in fellowship with God during the night while I was sleeping?

Option 4 and the only other option I can think of was to delve into scripture and figure out for myself why this was so burdensome to me and perhaps I would see a better alternative to what I was being taught. I ended up seeing a very different picture of who God is and what He expects of us. As a result I chose this option and I’ve never looked back.

Now that I’m free from this manipulative line of thought, I can clearly see that trying to maintain fellowship with God by my efforts is an impossible task. We are constantly sinning or in a state of sin. We are imperfect human beings. It is impossible for us to not sin. We often sin and don’t even realize it. God does not refuse fellowship with us just because we sin. In fact, the opposite is true. Everything I read about God in the Bible is about a God that pursues us and especially pursues us in times of sin and unrighteousness.

Michael Youssef writes about this very topic in his book “The God Who Pursues Us”. He writes on his website:

At the beginning of Luke 15, we see the religious leaders murmuring against Jesus: “But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, ‘This man welcomes sinners and eats with them’” (v. 2). The Pharisees considered anyone who admitted his need for God’s forgiveness as ignorant and weak. Though they studied the Scriptures, they were far from knowing and comprehending the heart of God.

Jesus was not intimidated by their intellectual arrogance or elitist attitude toward faith. He responded to their muttering by telling the parable of the lost sheep. “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them,” Jesus said. “Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep’” (Luke 15:4-6).

As I read that excerpt, I remember being taught that the ‘lost sheep’ represented the unsaved person or unbeliever. As I grew in my knowledge of the Bible, however, I found out that the exact opposite is true. Christ being referenced as the Shepard and Believers as sheep is pervasive in the Bible, especially the New Testament. This parable represents a Believer who as ‘gone astray’. Lost here, by the way, doesn’t refer to being lost or unsaved as we think of it today. The idea is a sheep that has gone astray or been separated from the flock in some way. Christ pursues that ‘lost sheep’ until found and returned to the fold.

I realize and believe that blatant and chronic sin hurts God and there is something to the idea that our blatant sin causes stress in our relationship with God, just like doing something wrong can strain a relationship we have with a family member or friend. But God isn’t human and I reallly think that the IFB has taken this way out of context. This idea of sin breaking fellowship with God is often used to coerce people into a legalistic righteousness. I see it being used by the IFB to make people feel guilty for not living perfect lives or at least for not striving for perfection. Some leaders of the IFB will even go as far as to say that if you aren’t repentant from your sin you probably aren’t saved. I find this rather arrogant and judgmental. Just because a Believer has a chronic sin or is living a sinful lifestyle doesn’t mean that God has turned His back on him/her. He will continue to pursue that person until that person either returns to a relationship with Him or dies.

Our relationship with God is not dependent on our behavior. We do not have to do anything to have fellowship with God. Jesus took care of what was needed to have fellowship with God when He died on the cross. When God looks at me He sees the Blood of Christ, NOT my sin. It’s freeing to know that my fellowship with God is not dependent on my behavior.

When the IFB teaches this they often use Old Testament scriptures to support their belief. What they fail to realize, however, is that the Old Testament was governed by the ceremonial laws of cleanness which no longer apply to us NT Christians. The purpose of breaking fellowship in the OT was to avoid that which was unclean. NT Christians are purified and cleansed by the Blood of Christ’s work on the Cross and no longer need to worry about ceremonial cleanliness.

Paul tells the church at Corinth in I Corinthians 1:8-10 that God has called the believer into fellowship with Christ and is faithful to that person. It doesn’t say that God has called the believer into fellowship with Christ and is faithful unless that person sins! How ridiculous.

The IFB also uses passage like 1 John 1:5-7 to teach that Christians lose fellowship with Christ when they sin. This is simply an unfortunate misinterpretation of scripture. This passage is talking about salvation not sinning. The “walking in darkness” mentioned in this passage is referring to the darkness of those who are not believers. It has nothing to do with a Believer who sins. Believers who sin are not walking in darkness because they are Believers. They may be walking in sin, but not darkness since darkness is a reference to being a non-Believer. If you notice, as the passage continues, verse 9 is the famous I John 1:9 “But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” It’s interesting to note that the verse stops with the thought of cleansing rather than restoring fellowship. The verse doesn’t say “…and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness and restore lost fellowship.” It ends with a cleansing from unrighteousness nothing more because nothing more is needed.

There are many more passages that the IFB uses to support this idea such as Acts 8:13-24, 1 Corinthians 5:1-7, Matthew 18:15-17 and Galatians 6:1. The purpose of this post is not to address each instance of scriptural manipulation in this area, but to inform and help people see that it is a mistake to think that fellowship with God is broken when a Believer sins.

Some churches use this concept to teach that a person can lose his/her salvation as a result of sin. I hope we all know that that is incorrect. I think the IFB does a good job, in my experience, of not taking this idea that far, however, I would imagine, given the diversity of IFB churches, that there are those that do take it too far.

This concept is also used in a manipulative way to justify disassociating with people who are hard to get along with or who have some type of addiction or chronic/habitual sin they are struggling with. It’s easier for a church to teach that we should break fellowship with that person rather then try and help him/her which I think is a shame. I’ve been to some IFB churches that teach the congregation to ‘dis fellowship’ or permanently cut off the relationship from people they deem are sinning “too much”.

This leads people to believe that they need to somehow play the role of Holy Spirit to try and convict others of what they feel is a need to restore fellowship. Many relationships have been broken as a result of this teaching. Wouldn’t it be nice if we helped each other rather than turn our back on someone because we are being taught that God turns His back on people who sin? How sad it is to think of all the people who are so confused and tormented by this teaching that they simply reject the faith because they feel that they can’t measure up! I can’t stress enough how freeing it is to know that I don’t have to be sin free in order for God to like me and want to have fellowship with me.

‘Jesus and the Law’

July 10th, 2009 18 comments

I heard a great message from John Piper entitled ‘Jesus and the Law’ and thought it would be a good idea to share it. He talks about some of the very things this site speaks about. A lot of things he says compliment the messages of this site very well. I don’t know much about John Piper, but this caught my attention. I would encourage you to take a few minutes to listen, especially if you are questioning that we need to follow a set of “standards” in order to live righteous lives.

Summary: Christianity is about developing a relationship with Christ, not following a set of rules and standards

Would love to hear your thoughts about it.

Enjoy

IFB Commonalities

March 11th, 2009 58 comments

I frequently get messages from people complaining that I’m generalizing too much and that not all IFB churches deserve the same retributions from this site. As a result I decided to put together a list of common attributes of the Independent Fundamental Baptist belief system. These can be found in all IFB churches to one degree or another and they are all used in abusive ways by the IFB.

  • Independent – do not associate with any religious conventions – very little accountability
  • Separation – teach be separate from the world and any appearance of worldliness
  • Fundamental – strict focus on only the fundamentals of the faith (salvation and evangelism) almost to the exclusion of all else.
  • Strict and inflexible literal interpretation of the Bible
  • Rejection of emotional responses to music and sermons
  • Baptism – teach that a Believer is living in disobedience until baptized by immersion
  • Membership in the “local church”
  • Tithing
  • Exclusive use of the King James Version of the Bible. All other Bible versions are considered “perversions”, wrong and sinful to use. Some IFB churches will only use the Authorized 1611 King James Version.
  • Strict music standards. The refusal to listen to, or participate in the performance of music that is not approved by the IFB. This is a complex issue but usually music is restricted to Hymns and productions from IFB type music ministers such as Ron Hamilton, Frank Garlock, Bill Gothard, etc. The mantra is “If it sounds ungodly it is ungodly.”
  • Clapping – After a musical performance by an individual or choir, the IFB teaches that it is not right to clap since clapping brings glory to the performer rather than to God.
  • Authoritarian leadership style
  • Patriarchal society – Advocate traditional patriarchal lifestyle and excludes other alternative lifestyles
  • Women are to be quiet, submissive and obedient to men. Women are not allowed to preach and are only allowed to teach if it is only to other women or girls. Women are not allowed to hold positions of authority in the church.
  • Strict education standards – usually home school or attend an IFB school
  • Corporal punishment for the discipline of children – “Break the will”, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”, etc.
  • Strict standards regarding dress and clothing style
  • Striving for purity and holiness through human effort – perfectionism/legalistic righteousness.
  • Strict standards for living. Not allowed to (or at least strongly discouraged) participate in “worldly” activities, such as dancing, drinking, smoking, going to the movies, gambling, eating at certain restaurants, etc.
  • Delayed obedience is disobedience. If you fail to obey authority immediately then you are still disobeying since it is delayed obedience.
  • Paranoia about modern science, health care and psychology
  • Unacceptability of missing church if not sick. Strong encouragement to attend church every time the doors are open

This list is by no means all inclusive and I will be updating this list as more come to my mind and attention.

Mental Health Deception

January 14th, 2009 23 comments

The Independent Fundamental Baptist church is famous for their support of the Nouthetic Counseling movement and their rejection of psychology. They teach that psychology is sinful because it has roots in secular humanism and the only way to heal mental health issues is to use the Word of God for counseling.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with Nouthetic counseling here is a brief overview:

Nouthetic counseling is just a fancy way of saying Biblical Counseling or in other words, the use of ONLY the Bible for counseling. Proponents of Nouthetic counseling claim it is a Christ centered, “directive” way of counseling, as opposed to most secular “non-directive” counseling methodology. It uses the authority of God to be confrontational and discerning. Nouthetic counseling includes the following: discerning sin or wrong doings in the counselee; admonishing; confronting with the Word of God; motivating for change; providing direction from the Scripture; teaching the word of God; leading the counselee to confession, repentance, reconciliation and restoration; supporting and encouraging the counselee in his walk with God.

The flagship scripture of the Nouthetic counseling movement is 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reprofe, correction and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (KJV). They teach that these two verses show that the Bible can be used for “instructing” and “correcting” all issues in life including mental health issues. They believe this because they teach that mental heath issues are the result of sin and that one only needs to purge the sin in one’s life through the use of scripture. They teach that if you pray hard enough, read scripture more, and have enough faith that there is no issues that can’t be corrected. They teach that serious mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, addiction are the result of sin and that they are in fact sin themselves. They take scripture out of context and use such verses as “And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish (or “competent to counsel” as interpreted by Jay Adams) one another.” Romans 15:14.

There are many other verses that are taken out of context and misinterpreted to support their belief such as Acts 20:31 and 1 Corinthians 4:14. The 2 Timothy 3:16-17 passage, for example, really has nothing to do with mental health. The purpose of Paul writing that letter to Timothy was to remind him that the Bible is our guide for life and the filter by which we are to test things to see if they are true or not. It shows us how to live for Christ and what we need to do to live holy lives. The danger comes when scripture is applied to an area of life that it wasn’t intended to apply to. Just as when someone is physically sick they seek a doctor, when someone is mentally ill they seek a mental health practitioner.

We believe that Nouthetic counseling is not only ineffective but also VERY dangerous because of it’s high potential for spiritual abuse and it’s misinterpretation of scripture. We have identified several flaws of the Nouthetic counseling movement:

Major flaws in the Nouthetic Counseling movement:

  1. Narrow understanding of the Word of God – Rally Cry: “The sufficiency of Scripture” – More Bible Centered than God Centered. It elevates the Bible as a 4th member of the Trinity
  2. Exclusive order focus on sin, instruction and obedience. We are all in agreement that sin is a psychopathology of the soul so sin is important, however, other pathology is not sin. Sin may send a person to hell, depression will not.
  3. Instruction and Obedience – “Here is what the Bible teaches, go out and do likewise” – The goal is conformity to the law. It’s very Authoritarian which is a cognitive dysfunction.
  4. Focuses on external not internal – The focus is on changing the outward behaviors in order to change the inward. This is backwards from what the Bible teaches.
  5. There is no doctrine of common grace. In fact there is no focus on grace at all. The focus is on changing self so that you are in better standing before God and so that God will love you more. This is also backwards from what the scripture teaches.
  6. It’s anti-science or at least anti-psychology
  7. It’s not practical – “Be more Spiritual!” – What does that mean?
  8. It’s unreasonable – “We are right and everyone else is wrong” mentality. Closed mind, unwilling to acknowledge other areas where the Lord is obviously working (i.e., my counseling office).
  9. It’s judgmental – They teach that the counselor’s role is to convict of sin. Leaves no room to allow the Holy Spirit to work and convict.
  10. It’s extremist – Inflexible, no room to make mistakes, no room for God’s grace.

Probably the most important reason why Nouthetic counseling is ineffective and dangerous is that it is ultimately disrespectful to the Creator of the brain, human body, and human development to ignore or downplay the biological, physical, and emotional by insisting that Christian counseling only works within the Spiritual realm. There is more to a person than just the spiritual components.

The problem here is that the Nouthetic way of thinking forces a believer to acknowledge that they aren’t spiritual enough because they are having these mental health issues. The blame goes to their lack of enough faith or trust in God’s deliverance. This type of spiritual abuse eventually leads to cynicism because the person is mustering up all the faith/trust they have and living just shy of perfection yet they still have depression, anxiety or whatever mental health issue. This can lead to a crisis of faith where the person begins to question their salvation. The leaders of this movement will even state outright that perhaps the person who struggles with mental health issues, despite their best efforts with faith, trust, increased spirituality (reading the bible and praying) really isn’t saved to begin with or else they wouldn’t have these problems.

Spanking Deception

January 14th, 2009 39 comments

I have to be honest, this isn’t an easy topic to discuss. Parenting is highly individualized and each child is unique. The type of discipline one child responds to may not be the type of discipline that another child or even a sibling responds to. To assign one major discipline technique and use it in a cookie cutter approach to discipline and behavior modification is at least dangerous if not abusive. The idea behind discipline is to modify behavior and to teach/mold/shape a child. To that end discipline methods should be carefully chosen and implemented based on the child’s personality and needs.

This topic could essentially go in many different directions. Talking about spanking could lead to parenting styles (i.e., Baby Training vs. Attachment Parenting), child personality development, conduct disorders, and so forth. The main goal of this section, however, is to discuss the idea of spanking and the dangerous manner in which the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination teaches and promotes it.

Now before I get started let me set the record straight on how I feel about spanking:


  • Do I think that spanking done in the proper context and in a loving, non-harsh, and proper manner is harmful for a child? Not really.

  • Do I think that spanking demonstrates aggression and that children who are spanked will tend to be more aggressive? Not really.

  • Do I think there are better, more effective ways of disciplining children? Absolutely!

  • Do I think that spanking can be very dangerous when done in anger? Absolutely!

  • Do I think that people blindly follow what is being taught in the church about spanking without thinking it through? Unfortunately Yes.

Spanking, if done at all, should only be used as a last resort.

My focus here is on the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination’s mentality regarding spanking and the manipulation of scripture they used to justify it. I will also be talking about the abusive manner in which the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination promotes spanking and the parents who blindly follow the instruction without regard to child differences, parenting style or any other unique facet of parenting and child growth and development.

I did a meta-analysis in my Masters Program on spanking and the empirical evidence both against and for spanking is inconclusive at best. I have made the Introduction section of my paper available online. If you would like to read it Click Here to open it in a new window. It is in .pdf format.

One of the things that makes me so angry about this issue is the blatant misuse and misinterpretation of the scripture used to support spanking. The reason for this misinterpretation is due to the use of the King James Version. You can read more about KJV Onlyism by Clicking Here. The focus of the controversy regarding this topic is with the word that had been translated as “rod”. As I researched scripture and sought guidance on the original language I don’t think there is any question as to the proper translation of this word. Almost everyone agrees that the “rod” connotes some type of physical or corporal punishment.

But is that were we should stop when interpreting scripture? Absolutely NOT!!! When a group makes a literal interpretation of a verse or a group of verses and neglects to consider them within the contextual theme of the passage, chapter or book, misinterpretations abound. The Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination has made such an error. Taken literally, the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination promotes the idea of physical punishment as the best means of child discipline. If you read the context surrounding the major verses used to promote spanking, you can see that there is a different theme to the passage than one of corporal punishment. Furthermore, anyone who has even the least amount of training in child behavior or child development knows that corporal punishment is not only the least effective way to discipline, but also carries with it the risk of backfiring and the risk of abuse.

With that in mind let me go over a few of the verses that the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination uses to support their promotion of corporal punishment. There are actually many verses in the KJV Bible (I’m referencing the KJV since it is the version that the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination use) that use the word “rod”, and there are several uses for that word. The word “rod” can be used for:

  • It is used in regard to punishment:
    • Pr 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
    • Pr 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
    • Pr 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
    • Pr 23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
    • Pr 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.
  • It is used to reference an instrument or tool of a Shephard:
    • Leviticus 27:32 And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD.
    • Psalm 23:4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
    • Psalm 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.
    • Isaiah 28:27 For the fitches are not threshed with a threshing instrument, neither is a cart wheel turned about upon the cummin; but the fitches are beaten out with a staff, and the cummin with a rod.
    • Exodus 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
  • It is used as a symbol of Godly Heritage:
    • Psalm 74:2 Remember thy congregation, which thou hast purchased of old; the rod of thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed; this mount Zion, wherein thou hast dwelt.
    • Jeremiah 10:16 The portion of Jacob is not like them: for he is the former of all things; and Israel is the rod of his inheritance: The LORD of hosts is his name.
    • Jeremiah 51:19 The portion of Jacob is not like them; for he is the former of all things: and Israel is the rod of his inheritance: the LORD of hosts is his name.
  • It is used to symbolize the authority of the wicked:
    • Psalm 125:3 For the rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous; lest the righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity.
    • Proverbs 22:8 He that soweth iniquity shall reap vanity: and the rod of his anger shall fail.
  • It is used as a punishment for a “Fool”:
    • Proverbs 10:13 In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding.
    • Proverbs 26:3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool’s back.
  • It is used as a symbol of man’s authority:
    • II Samuel 7:14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
    • Ezekiel 19:11 And she had strong rods for the sceptres of them that bare rule, and her stature was exalted among the thick branches, and she appeared in her height with the multitude of her branches.
    • Ezekiel 19:14 And fire is gone out of a rod of her branches, which hath devoured her fruit, so that she hath no strong rod to be a sceptre to rule. This is a lamentation, and shall be for a lamentation.
  • It is used as a symbol of God’s authority:
    • Job 9:34 Let him take his rod away from me, and let not his fear terrify me:
    • Job 21:9 Their houses are safe from fear, neither is the rod of God upon them.
    • Psalm 89:32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.
    • Isaiah 10:5 O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.
    • Isaiah 10:15 Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood.
    • Isaiah 11:4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
    • Lamentations 3:1 I am the man that hath seen affliction by the rod of his wrath.
    • Micah 7:14 Feed thy people with thy rod, the flock of thine heritage, which dwell solitarily in the wood, in the midst of Carmel: let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old.
    • Ezekiel 20:37 And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant:
    • Ezekiel 21:10 It is sharpened to make a sore slaughter; it is furbished that it may glitter: should we then make mirth? it contemneth the rod of my son, as every tree.
    • Ezekiel 21:13 Because it is a trial, and what if the sword contemn even the rod? it shall be no more, saith the Lord GOD.
  • It is used to symbolize the authority of a Nation:
    • Isaiah 9:4 For thou hast broken the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, as in the day of Midian.
    • Isaiah 14:29 Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.
    • Isaiah 30:31 For through the voice of the LORD shall the Assyrian be beaten down, which smote with a rod.
    • Micah 5:1 Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.

It’s important to distinguish, here, the verses that the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination uses to promote Corporal Punishment. Every time I’ve heard an Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination church teach on spanking or defend it’s practice they will use a combination of several verses in Proverbs. They are:

  • Pr 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
  • Pr 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
  • Pr 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
  • Pr 23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
  • Pr 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

Now at first glance it would very much seem that those verses are promoting spanking. The problem is, however, those verses are almost always taken out of context. To understand the context of Proverbs, it’s important to look at the theme of Proverbs.

Sidebar:
I very much dislike the word “beat” used in the KJV in these passages. We all hopefully know that it’s NEVER right to beat a child. Unfortunately there are Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination church that take a literal interpretation too far here and teach its congregation that God is instructing parents to actually beat their children into submission and obedience.

    Example:
  • Jack Hyles, founder, Hyles-Anderson College, as quoted in his book How to Rear Children (1972)
    • Sometimes spanking should leave stripes on the child.
      Citing Proverbs 20:30
    • The spanking should be administered firmly. It should be painful and it should last until the child’s will is broken. It should last until the child is crying not tears of anger but tears of a broken will. As long as he is stiff, grits his teeth, holds on to his own will, the spanking should continue.
    • The [spanking] ritual should be deliberate and last at least ten or fifteen minutes. … It should be a ritual dreaded by the child. He should not only dread the pain but the time consumed in the ordeal.

  • Don’t bother buying the book or reading it. It’s pretty much worthless and full of VERY dangerous errors like the ones quoted above. Unfortunately his book is available online for free, but I’m not going to provide a link. I can’t in good conscience promote it. If you really want it you’ll have to find it on your own.

This is one of the reasons I don’t like the KJV. It uses words that are either out dated or have a VERY different meaning in today’s society. It can be VERY dangerous and lead to some awful misinterpretations. I talk more about this in the KJV Onlyism section.

When interpreting Proverbs, it’s important to remember that the Proverbs were written by Solomon and are about wisdom. The central theme to the book of Proverbs can be linked to Proverbs 1:7 “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” This theme of centrality of the knowledge of God runs through the entirety of the book. The instructions that are given, although they are for everyday circumstances, allude to humankind’s uprightness before God. The thought pattern that the reverence and respect for God in all circumstances brings true knowledge is encouraged in this book.

The book centers on the willingness to learn as important. God’s people were taught to believe that God’s law is something that is part of life and is a duty, and this required obedience. Proverbs calls this kind of obedience the fear of the Lord. This obligation, which is similar to the knowledge of God that they had from the prophetic books, involves reverence, gratitude, and commitment to do the will of God in every circumstance. The main goal of Proverbs is to define clearly what it means to be fully devoted to God’s will and seeing his will accomplished in this world.

Given the theme of Proverbs and the context, to take a literal interpretation about the “rod” is to miss the greater picture of what the Lord is attempting to communicate with these passages in proverbs. If you read the context of these passages, you will see that the whole idea is one of discipline, NOT JUST spanking. The message is that parents shouldn’t be worried that their punishment will harm a child or make a child love the parent any less. See parents who fail to properly discipline their children often fail because they are worried that their harsh discipline will hurt the relationship between them and their children and that the child will despise the parents for the punishment which is not true. In fact the opposite is true.

Most parents today are more concerned with being a friend to their children then they are being a parent or authority figure. Believe it or not, children want parents to discipline them. It helps the child know that the parent cares enough to protect, shape, mold, and teach them. Children often act out as a way to gain the authoritative attention from the parents that they crave.

As a Marriage and Family Therapist I see families with a child who is misbehaving. We call this child the symptom bearer of the family dysfunction. The misbehaving child is the one who is most burdened with the family dysfunction and it trying to find a way to help. The “symptom bearer” is often the most healthy member of the family. Parents often make the mistake that their child is misbehaving because they are bad. In actuality the child’s misbehavior is an attempt to keep the family together and decrease the dysfunction. The child unconsciously reasons that the family desperately needs to be united and the only way he/she knows how to do that is to act out so that the family unites to solve his/her misbehavior.

I believe that the Lord, in His infinite Wisdom, knew this and that’s why He wrote Proverbs. These passages in Proverbs are about this very thing. When parents properly discipline their children, the children will respond naturally by behaving properly which will in the future guide them to making right decisions which will lead to their safety and moral growth. Their Salvation will be easier for them to grasp which will keep them out of hell (see Proverbs 23:14). A parent shows more love to their children when they discipline, whether it is in the form of spanking, time out, grounding, etc. then when they let their child do whatever they want (see Proverbs 13:24).

Another VERY important thing to remember here is that ALL 36 references in the Bible to the “rod” are in the Old Testament. As with Tithing, it’s important to remember that we are no longer under the Old Covenant. To my knowledge, someone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, there is no reference to “the rod” in the New Testament. It is an exclusive interpretation from the Hebrew. We should be careful about taking verses from the OT literally since they often reflect ceremonial and other laws that NT Christians are not required to follow.

The Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination has taken these verses (see above) and developed an entire philosophy of child discipline on them! The Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination tells parents to use spanking as a primary form of punishment or discipline, but this teaching is not found in the Bible.

When we read about Jesus, we read that Jesus is described as a shepherd who gently guides and corrects us. He is “long suffering” and patient with us. The shepherd used his “rod” to guide the sheep, not to beat them! Psalm 23 uses “shebet” to describe the shepherd’s “rod” which is the same word “shebet” that is used in the Proverbs verses above.

Needless to say, I hold to the figurative interpretation of these verses.

Tithing Deception

January 14th, 2009 80 comments

Tithing – What the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination teaches about tithing and why it is wrong.

tithing deceptionBefore I get started I must premise this section by telling you that this is one of the most dangerous and destructive false teaching of the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination. Teaching tithing is absolutely unbiblical and nothing more than mind control manipulation. There has been a lot of good information on the truth about tithing made available online and I will provide some links at the bottom of this page to web sites that I have read and agree with. The purpose of this page is not to go into a lot of detail about tithing. I would simply like to point out the false teachings of the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination in this area and touch on some of the important points about tithing that show why it is wrong.

When I recently asked an Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination minister about tithing this was his reply was: “When men will not tithe, (1) God’s work on earth is hindered, (2) the non-tither is robbing God, (3) God will withhold His blessing, even chastening the non-tither. However, God has categorically promised to bless those who will so honor Him. Even other people would perceive God’s blessing upon them as they returned to tithing.”

  1. False Teaching #1: Tithes vs. OfferingsThe basis of the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination teachings for tithe is a distinction between “Tithes” and “Offerings”. The Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination teaches that there is a difference between the two. Basically Tithes is 10% of your monetary Gross (before taxes) income and Offerings is anything over and above the tithe. They further teach that a person is commanded to tithe to the “Local” or “Home” church (the church with which they consider their permanent place of worship). They teach that if you wish to give over and above the tithe you can do so by giving more to the local church or to another ministry. They further teach that if you give your tithe to another ministry then it doesn’t count as tithe but offerings and you are still “robbing God” if you don’t give your tithe to your home church. The Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination used such verses as Deuteronomy 12:6,11; 2 Chronicles 31:12; Nehemiah 10:37; Nehemiah 12:44; Nehemiah 13:5; and Malachi 3:8 for the basis of their teachings. The offering isn’t required, however, the tithe is required.
  2. False Teaching #2: The “Devourer” – Curses for Not TithingThe Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination uses Malachi 3:10-11 to teach that if you don’t tithe, the “Devourer” (Satan) will come and destroy your property as a punishment so that you will incur more financial burden. They teach that if you tithe God will protect your property and your finances through Divine Intervention and not allow bad things to happen that take up your resources such as cars breaking down and leaky roofs.

    Here they spell out specifically that God promised that He would “rebuke the devourer.” The word so translated as (lka awkal) literally means “the eater.” The reference was to hoards of voracious insects which had destroyed their crops. Further, God promised that their vine would not prematurely “cast her fruit before the time in the field.” The word translated as cast her fruit (lkv shawlol) has the sense of a “miscarriage.” What had happened was that God had sent bad weather which caused the grape crop to be pre-maturely blown on the ground. It may have been by high winds, hail, or a combination of them. God had gotten His tithe. Israel, however, had missed God’s blessing and had in fact paid the penalty for not tithing.

  3. False Teaching #3: Blessings for those that TitheThe Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination wrongly teaches that tithing opens the door for God’s blessings and when we don’t tithe we are robbing from God and we will be cursed by God withholding His blessings from us. They sight Proverbs 3:9-10 and Malachi 3:7-11 for this belief.

    They teach that the degree of giving was based upon how “God hath prospered” which they will say clearly implied proportional giving. In other words, we ought to give in direct proportion as God has blessed us. And of course the universal proportion throughout the Scripture is ten percent as the tithe. They think that Paul clearly is not referring to the tithe regarding the offering for the impoverished Judaean churches, the principle lies just beneath the surface here.

    They will bring you back to the Israelites and tell you that as Israel began to tithe (even upon their greatly diminished crops) God promised that He would “open the windows of heaven.” They say the reference is likely to sorely needed rain. (The phrase “the windows of heaven” is found three times in the Bible. Notably in the time of Noah it clearly referred to God sending rain. See Genesis 7:11, 8:2. It also is alluded to in II Kings 7:2,19 in the time of Elisha and the siege of Jerusalem. There it also likely was a reference to needed rain.) God prompted them to “prove me now herewith.” In other words, “Put me to the test, and see if I will not bless you in return.” God promised that as they began to once again tithe, He would pour out blessings for them such they would not be able to receive it all.

  4. False Teaching #4: If you don’t tithe you are branded a ThiefIf you don’t pay tithes the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination considers you a thief. The Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination teaches that it is the members’ responsibility to support the church financially. They use Mal. 3:8-10 to support this and they call the withholder of the tithes and offerings a thief. They even extend this fallacy to the New Testament claiming that I Corinthians 9:1-14, especially verse 14, obligates believers to support the church in precisely the same way that the Tabernacle was supported – by tithes and offerings.
  5. False Teaching #5: Tithe Must come from the Gross IncomeThis is a huge deal for the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination. They teach that if you don’t tithe from your gross income then your tithe doesn’t count because in II Proverbs 3:9-10 the Lord tells us to “Honor the Lord with Firstfruits” which they interpret to mean that one should set aside the tithe FIRST and that it should come out of your gross income, before all other bills and expenses. They teach that if you leave the tithe until last, God usually misses out.
  6. False Teaching #6: Storehouse TithingThe Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination teaches that tithing is to be “storehouse” tithing. Storehouse tithing means the giving of the tithes into God’s appointed place. In Old Testament days, the storehouse was the Jewish temple.

    In the Old Testament, The storehouse mentioned was the treasury or warehouse adjacent to the Temple. The economy of the day was largely agriculture and trade was commonly done by barter. It was the practice of the Israelites to bring their tithe to the Temple in the form of the actual commodity (grain, figs, wine, etc.) These then were stored in a warehouse-type of building called the storehouse which was a part of the treasury of the Temple. (Interestingly, Paul used the equivalent Greek word translated as store in I Corinthians 16:2, referring to the local church.) As they did not tithe, the work of the Temple, specifically in the provision of the Levites food, was damaged.

    In New Testament days, the storehouse is the treasury of one’s local or home church. They use Acts 4:35, 37 5:2 to justify these teachings. According to Acts 4:35,37 and Acts 5:2, the Christians brought their tithes and offerings to the Apostles’ feet. They also point to both Malachi 3 and Paul’s mention of the “storehouse”. According to 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 the Christians at Corinth were to collect their tithes & offerings and bring them to their local church at Corinth, or ‘lay by him in store’ on the first day of the Week, Sunday. They believe that I Corinthians 16:3 indicates not only that the storehouse is the church treasury, but that the church body collectively has the responsibility to designate where God’s money is to be spent. The collective belief among the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination is that in this day and age the STOREHOUSE for your tithe is your LOCAL CHURCH. The Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination does not believe that it is not God’s plan for you to give your tithe wherever you decide.

    If you ask them WHY ARE WE TO PLACE OUR TITHE INTO OUR CHURCH? they will respond with what simply amounts to a guilt trip. They will tell you that your tithes and offerings are for the support, upkeep, and ministry of your Church. Tithes should never be designated by the giver. They are to be left for use as the Church body decides. As mentioned previously they teach that offerings over and above the tithe can go to other deserving ministries, but God says your tithe should go to your local church. They teach that if everyone gave their tithe to worthy ministries outside the local church, the local church would die and they take 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 out of context for this belief.

    The Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination is very good at telling the word translations from the Septuagint. They believe that the word translated as in store (yhsaurizw thesaurizo) is the same word used in the Septuagint for “storehouse” in Malachi 3:10. The greater point is that the local church of the New Testament has become the “storehouse” for the giving by God’s people even as the Temple was during the time of the Law.

  7. False Teaching #7: Tithes must be given on the First day of the Week – SundayThe Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination will present to you I Corinthians 16:2 where Paul directs how giving ought to be done. “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.” They will say that this is a clear indication to the day of the week on which the gentile church assembled. It no longer was the Sabbath on Saturday. Because of our Lord’s resurrection on the first day, the early church began to assemble thereon. They will also point to Acts 20:7.

    They will convince you by stating that some claim Paul was admonishing them to personally and privately set aside funds to this end each Sunday until Paul arrived. However, that neither makes sense nor meshes with the context. But they argue that if that were the case, why not lay funds aside on payday which probably was Friday or some other day? The fact that Paul directed this be done on the Lord’s day, when the church assembled, lends direct credence to the position of giving in the church service (i.e., putting it in the offering plate or whatever device they used). Furthermore they will tell you that Paul made clear that he did not want to be involved with taking such an offering when he arrived. It therefore follows that each Sunday, they were to take a special offering to be duly set aside toward the day of Paul’s arrival.

So what’s wrong with the above? you ask… Well it would probably be easier to answer the question, What’s NOT wrong with the above? However, I would like to touch on some of the most important reasons why what the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination teaches about tithing is WRONG.

    • First of all it’s important to understand that Tithing is a Biblical principle, however, it no longer applies because tithing was commanded under the Old Covenant. Tithing is no longer a relevant principle. Tithing was a command under the Mosaic Law, a series of laws that we are no longer obliged to follow. The Mosaic Laws were specifically for the Israelites during that time period. The Old Covenant was only meant for the Israelites until the New Covenant began at the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.We can see by reading Numbers 18:20-21 in context what the tithes were for. Numbers 18 is cataloging the duties of the priests and the Levites and showcasing what was done to support them as they worked in the Tabernacle. The Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination makes that mistake of stopping at verse 21. If you continue reading in that chapter you will see that tithes were food products from the land of Israel which were to be used to compensate the Levites for serving God in the Tabernacle as a replacement for their lost land inheritance rights in Israel (see Numbers 18:31). Every mention of tithe there after, is a reference to that law.

      Since tithing was a part of the Law of Moses under the legal economy of Israel. It does not apply to the Church today, since we are under grace and not under the law (Romans 6:14; 10:4). The New Testament teaches proportional giving according to what we have, not what we don’t have (see 2 Cor. 8:12). The New Testament also teaches that we are to “make up your own mind as to how much you should give and don’t give reluctantly or in response to pressure” (2 Corinthians 9:7). The Lord doesn’t want us to give under compulsion or under a belief that we have to. The Lord wants us to give because we want to. Nor does the Lord care how much you give. The Lord is more concerned with your heart attitude and your motivation for giving.

    • Second, I have never heard a tithe message where Malachi 3 wasn’t used. The problem is, however, that churches that use Malachi 3 to support tithing ignore five important Bible facts.
      1. Malachi in context is part of the Old Covenant and, to my knowledge, is not quoted in the New Covenant to validate tithing for us.
      2. Malachi is very clear in addressing what the curses were for. The curses were for dishonest priests because they had stolen the best offerings from God (see Malachi In 1:6; 2:1 and 3:1-5). The “curse” of Malachi 3:9 is the curse of the Nation of Israel’s breaking of the Old Covenant. Malachi’s audience had recently re-committed themselves to fall under the blessings or curses of that Old Covenant Law. Voluntarily placing yourself under any one part of the Law, such as tithing, obligated you to keep all the Law perfectly. (see Deuteronomy 27:26 and Nehemiah 10:29).
      3. In Malachi 3:10-11 the tithes mentioned are still referring to the food brought to the tabernacle NOT money (Lev. 27:30-33).
      4. The assumption is made that Malachi is addressing everyone. The truth is that only landowners and herdsmen inside Israel were required to pay tithes not everyone. Others only paid free-will offerings
      5. “Storehouse” does not mean “treasury”. In Malachi’s time, the government was involved in collecting and redistributing the church funds. Storehouses were considered the property of the theocratic state which received political aid to collect its tithes. Storehouses held food and sacrificial animals which were used to provide food for the poor, fatherless, and orphan in the land. It had nothing to do with bringing money to pay the salary of the Pastor or church leaders or for up keep and expansion of the Church building.

      So as you can see, The truth of Malachi is completely different from what the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination teaches today about tithing. The Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination has taken Malachi out of context, twisted and manipulated it to fit their doctrine, and are using it in an abusive way that is very different from what it was intended to be used.

      If Malachi 3:10 really worked for New Covenant Christians they way that the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination claims it works, then millions of poor tithing Christians would have been blessed with a blessing far above anything that anyone has ever imagined. There is no evidence that the majority of “tithe-payers”, whether poor or wealthy are ever blessed financially merely because they tithe (see Heb. 7:18, 19; 8:6-8, 13).

      To confirm this, during my 25 years in the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination I give my “tithe” faithfully just as instructed by the leaders. I have never received the blessings that they claim that one will receive if one tithes. They will claim that I didn’t tithe with the proper motivation or that I gave begrudgingly and that is the reason I haven’t been blessed. No, that’s just another lie of the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination to guilt a person into paying tithes and to cover themselves from the liability of their false teachings.

    • Third, as stated earlier, tithing is not Taught in the New Testament. The Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination uses Matthew 23:23 to support the idea that Jesus taught the New Testament Church to tithe. If you look at the context carefully, however, you see that the New Covenant began at the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Jesus NOT his birth (see also Gal. 3:19,24,25). When Jesus discussed tithing in Matthew 23:23, he was only commanding Jewish obedience to the Old Covenant Law which he endorsed and supported until Calvary. In Matthew 23:23 Jesus told his followers to obey the scribes and Pharisees “because they sit in Moses’ seat.” Yet He did not command Gentiles whom He healed to present themselves to the priests and obey the Law of Moses. To my knowledge, there is not a single New Testament Bible text which teaches that New Testament Christians are supposed to continue tithing.The Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination will also try and convince you that tithing was taught by Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:14. Yes I agree, taken by itself verse 14 clearly indicates that those who preach the gospel should be supported by those who benefit from it. HOWEVER, the MESSAGE OF THE CHAPTER neither begins nor ends there. The entire chapter is the continuous thought of Paul. You can’t just take one verse, pull it out and draw your conclusions from one single verse. By looking only at verse 14 you are only seeing one part of Paul’s thoughts on the topic. You have to look at it in the context of the entire thought. I will talk about this passage more next.
    • Fourth, as stated earlier, tithing is not supposed to be for bringing money to pay the salary of the Pastor or church leaders or for up keep and expansion of the Church building. The FIBD uses the 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 passage to teach that church leaders should be supported with tithes “in the same way,” “following the same principles” that were used to support Old Testament priests and that is why 1 Corinthians 9:14 begins with “even so” – to connect it with 9:13.Again, I agree, taken by itself verse 14 clearly indicates that those who preach the gospel should be supported by those who benefit from it. As I indicated earlier, the MESSAGE OF THE CHAPTER neither begins nor ends there. The entire chapter is the continuous thought of Paul. You can’t just take one verse, pull it out and draw your conclusions from one single verse. By looking only at verse 14 you are only seeing one part of Paul’s thoughts on the topic. You have to look at it in the context of the entire thought.

      If you keep this passage in context, you will see that Paul’s message is not about tithing in the way that we know of it today at all. First of all, verse 14 has nothing to do with money. Verse 13 states: “those who work in the Temple get their MEALS from the FOOD brought to the Temple as OFFERINGS…” then in verse 14 he states “in the same way…” so Paul seems to only be referring to food provided as meals to the Temple workers it has nothing to do with money.

      Secondly, if you Read verse 12 If you support others who preach to you, shouldn’t we have an even greater right to be supported? But we have never used this right. We would rather put up with anything than be an obstacle to the Good News about Christ. and continue reading after verse 14 15 Yet I have never used any of these rights. And I am not writing this to suggest that I want to start now. In fact, I would rather die than lose my right to boast about preaching without charge. 16 Yet preaching the Good News is not something I can boast about. I am compelled by God to do it. How terrible for me if I didn’t preach the Good News! 17 If I were doing this on my own initiative, I would deserve payment. But I have no choice, for God has given me this sacred trust. 18 What then is my pay? It is the opportunity to preach the Good News without charging anyone. That’s why I never demand my rights when I preach the Good News. you can clearly see that it wasn’t Paul’s intention to communicate that the OT principles should be followed. In fact he was stating the exact opposite. If you maintain the context of that chapter, however, it’s clear that he is against church members paying to support his preaching. According to this passage, a preacher has a certain right to request money for payment but Paul is saying that he shouldn’t use that right. For Churches to guilt the congregation into paying tithes so that the pastor is supported is pure manipulation.

      Also, if you think about the relationship between the Pastor/Church Leaders and the congregation, common sense will tell you that a congregation paying the salary of the church leaders creates a very precarious ethical dilemma of a dual relationship. Paying the leader’s salaries opens the door for individuals, especially those who pay a lot to the church, to control and manipulate the church staff. It invariably changes the relationship between the leaders and the congregation from one of fellow believer meeting together for worship, to one of payment for services rendered, which creates all kinds of problems.

      I’ve heard stories about the rich person in the church who gives so much money to the church that he threatens to stop giving if the church doesn’t do things his way. Of course the Pastor and staff are pressured into giving the individual what he/she wants so that the money keeps coming in.

    • Fifth, churches under the New Covenant were never meant to be a “storehouse” or even a building. The false teaching is that Christian buildings called “churches,” “tabernacles,” or “temples” replaced the OT Temple as God’s dwelling place. God’s Word never describes New Covenant churches as “tabernacles,” “temples” or “buildings” in which God dwells! God’s church, God’s dwelling place, is within the believers. Believers do not “go to church”! Believers “assemble to worship.” Also, since OT priests did not pay tithes, then tithing cannot logically continue. Therefore it is wrong to call a building “God’s storehouse” for tithes. (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 6:19, 20; Eph. 1:22, 23; 2:21; 4:12-16; Rev. 3:12). For “storehouse” compare 1 Corinthians 16:2 with 2 Corinthians 12:14 and Acts 20:17, 32-35. For several centuries after Calvary Christians did not even have their own buildings (to call storehouses) because Christianity was an outlaw religion.

The following is an excerpt from “Should The Church Teach Tithing” – By Russell Earl Kelly which can be downloaded FREE by Clicking Here

  • Finally, we can see from history that tithing did not actually even become a part of the Church until A.D. 777. The false teaching is that the historical church has always taught tithing. The earliest Christian assemblies patterned themselves after the Jewish synagogues which were led by rabbis who, like Paul, refused to gain a profit from preaching and teaching God’s Word. There are many books on Jewish social life which explain this in great detail.From Christ’s death until Christianity became a legally recognized religion almost 300 years later, the great majority of church leaders took self-imposed vows of poverty. This can be historically documented! They took Jesus’ words to the rich young ruler in Luke 18:22 literally “sell all that you have, give it to the poor, and follow me.” Most church historians agree that these early church leaders for at least the first 200 years worked for a living and were self-supporting. How could a Christian leader tell a Roman census taker that he was a full-time preacher? That would almost guarantee his death!

    Clement of Rome (c95), Justin Martyr (c150), Irenaeus (c150-200) and Tertullian (150-220) all opposed tithing as a strictly Jewish tradition. The Didache (c150-200) actually condemns traveling apostles who stay longer than three days and ask for money. And travelers who decided to remain with them were required to lean a trade. These early opponents of tithing are not quoted by modern tithe teachers.

    Cyprian (200-258) tried to impose tithing in Carthage, North Africa around A.D. 250. At his conversion Cyprian gave away great personal wealth to the poor and lived under a vow of poverty. His idea of tithing included equal re-distribution to the poor. And we must remember that his ideas of tithing were not adopted. When tithe teachers quote Ambrose, Chrysostom and Augustine as so-called “church fathers” they conveniently leave out the first 200 years of church history. Even after Christianity became legal in the fourth century for over a thousand years the greatest spiritual leaders almost all took vows of deep poverty and preferred to live unmarried lives in monasteries. If these tithe teachers are quoted, then the church should also be told what kind of lives they usually led and how they redistributed the tithe to the poor.

    Tithing was not always in the church. While disagreeing with their own theologians, most church historians write that tithing did not become an accepted doctrine in the church for over 700 years after the death of Christ. According to the very best historians and encyclopedias, it took over 500 years before the local church Council of Macon in France, in the year 585, tried unsuccessfully to enforce tithing on its members. It was not until the year 777 that Emperor Charlemagne legally allowed the church to collect tithes. And even then it was to gain favor with the Pope. That, my friend, is the history of tithing found in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana and the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia for everybody to read.

For more information about tithing please visit the following links:

www.shouldthechurchteachtithing.com
Tithing Frequently Asked Questions
www.nomoretithing.org

A curious reader writes:

You have overlooked a very important detail about tithing, the fact is it was before the law ever was. Way befroe [sic] God commanded the tithe under the law Abraham tithied [sic] a tenth of all he had to the high preist [sic] in his day, according to this then tithing was before the law and is required now according to Gods word.

I have over looked this detail, but only in the sense that I didn’t include it on this page. Since this person brings it to my attention allow me to add this to the page.

The verse this person is referring to is Genesis 14:20. The first observation is that we need to keep Genesis 14:20 in context so it would be better to refer to Genesis 14:16-24 for the complete story. When we do that we see that Abraham was NOT tithing as we know of it today and therefore can not be an example of the tithing that is preached in Christian churches in today’s church age.

Abraham’s tithe actually has nothing to do with religion or even God. It has no connection with tithing as we know it for several reasons. (1) He gave a tenth of the spoils of war, this wasn’t income that he was giving nor were they his possessions. The spoils of war belonged to the Pagan gods. Abraham was honoring the line of Levi by giving a tenth of the spoils of war to Malchizedek. (2) It wasn’t money it was loot. (3) It was a traditional part of the Pagan system to give a tenth of one’s spoils of war the the Canaanite King. (4) Even though this even took place before the Mosaic law it was still a requirement under the laws at the time.

Read Hebrews 7 for more information. Also refer to the sites mentioned above. Russell Kelly can explain this topic far better than I can.

Jes Writes:

“Abraham was honoring the line of Levi by giving a tenth of the spoils of war to Malchizedek.”

Abraham was not honoringthe line of the Levitical Priesthood because Levi had not been born yet!

Thanks for your keen observations Jes. We actually don’t know if Levi had been born during this tithe offering that Abraham gave mentioned here, but he probably was. Abraham lived long enough (175 years) to see his great grand children (Levi was Abraham’s great grand son) so it’s certainly possible that Levi WAS alive during this time when Abraham gave his tithe as talked about in Hebrews and most scholars believe he was.

Even so, it’s important to understand that “the line of Levi” talk about here was his future line NOT his past line. The birth of Levi was anticipated and Hebrews 7 (see verse 10) indicates that Abraham’s one-time tithe was in anticipation of the Levitical priesthood – the future priesthood of Levi.

Spiritual Abuse

January 14th, 2009 41 comments

Brief Introduction

Spiritual abuse is similar to emotional abuse and occurs when the leaders of a church or religious organization use their power and position to manipulate, control and/or coerce their congregation/followers/members, whether on purpose or with good intentions. Spiritual abuse often occurs subtly for seemingly the “right” reasons, but it can also be blatant for outright selfish financial, emotional or physical gain. Spiritual abuse includes, but is not limited to mind-control, thought reform, coercion, manipulation, deception, legalism, authoritarianism, guilt trips, judgementalism/”Phariseeism”, holier-than-though attitude, and a “we are right and everyone else is wrong” attitude.

Spiritual abuse is often done in the name of proclaiming the ‘truth’. The trouble with spiritual abuse is that the perpetrator often has been deceived him/herself into thinking that they are helping when in actuality they are doing more harm than good.

Spritual Abuse has turned Christianity into ‘Churchianity’ where the church and it’s particular traditions have become more important than or at least equal to, the Word. ‘Denominationalism’ and ‘traditionalism’ find their way into the teachings and become enmeshed so that no one can tell where Christianity begins and the traditions end.

David Johnson & Jeff VanVonderen in The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse describe spiritual abuse well when he said: “It’s possible to become so determined to defend a spiritual place of authority, a doctrine or a way of doing things that you wound and abuse anyone who questions, or disagrees, or doesn’t ‘behave’ spiritually the way you want them to. When your words and actions tear down another, or attack or weaken a person’s standing as a Christian- to gratify you, your position or your beliefs while at the same time weakening or harming another- that is spiritual abuse.”

One of the biggest problems with spiritual abuse is that it is VERY subtle. Think of the abuser as a con artist. Pastors and other spiritual leaders become adept at using spcipture to back up their subtle manipulation and control. Leaders often find ways to control, not only what happens in their churches, but also what happens in Your personal life. For example, leaders in the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination would frequently communicate the need for us to consult with them (or your discipler) before making decisions especially major decisions. Leadership brings guilt on members for going on vacation especially of that person hasn’t paid the correct amount of tithe.

Fratranizing with people who have left the church is strictly forbidden. People who have left the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination are shunned and considered “off limits”. In the church I was in growing up it wasn’t out right taught but the message was clear that if you didn’t go to an Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination you were not only decieved and sinnful, but also your salvation was questionable. The message was that the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination had the monopoly on the gospel message and the only way to be truly saved was to get saved from the message that the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination brings.

Spiritual abuse often leads people to question their spirituality or standing with God. Victims become preoccupied with observing others in the congregation to see who is living up to the rules and who isn’t. In my church, If someone wasn’t living up to the standards set forth by the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination they were considered rebellious and we were not to have any associations with them. One of the rules was that dying one’s hair is considered worldly and therefore a sin. I remember when an older girl who had graduated from our school came back from college and her hair was died. We all stood around in a circle gossiping about how she had backsliden and how she was being influenced by the world since she obviously didn’t go to an Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination affiliated college.

Churches that abuse promote extra-biblical rules and standards and equate them as doctrine or at least as coming from God, with your salvation or spirituality in jeopardy if they aren’t followed. Trivial matters are brought to attention such as the way one dressed or styles his/her hair, the music one listens to, the clothes one wears, etc.

Victims are often depressed about their inability to live up to those rules and standards, worried that they aren’t pleasing the Lord, and frustrated that they keep sinning. Victims often feel that they aren’t good enough and not able to live up to the expectations. The joy of a relationship with God is replaces with a fear of God the “Cosmic Killjoy”.

Churches that abuse often focus on the penalty for sin. They communicate the Lord as a cosmic dictator or harsh taskmaster, eagerly waiting for you to make a mistake so that he can “chasten” you. A friend once told me that God was her “cosmic kill-joy”. Abusive churches are often performance oriented, with an “us verses them” or elitist mentality. Questioning is often discouraged, forbidden, or branded as a sign of rebellion or lack of spirituality. Those who do not follow the rules may be labeled, shunned, shamed, or removed from church positions or even excommunicated.

You may not be allowed to confront or question those in leadership as they are “God’s anointed”. Any form of questioning is considered an act of rebellion and the person is chastised for question the authority of the leaders. This “guilt trip” suppresses the person normal God given intuition that something doesn’t quite feel right about the church. The leaders take advantage of this by preaching a sermon on how the authority of the leaders shouldn’t be questioned and the cycle of abuse continues as the person is reluctant to even consider that their intuition is correct. Thus the person is stuck at the abusive church, ensnared in the web of manipulation and lies. Members are taught that only God is to handle situations in which leadership may have done wrong leaving the leadership unaccountable.

Spiritual abuse is also the misuse of a position of power, leadership, or influence to further the selfish interests of someone other than the individual who needs help. Sometimes abuse arises out of a doctrinal position. At other times it occurs because of legitimate personal needs of a leader that are being met by illegitimate means. Spiritually abusive religious systems are sometimes described as legalistic, mind controlling, religiously addictive, and authoritarian.

Common Characteristics of Spiritual Abuse Among the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination

  1. Manipulation of Scripture
  2. As with many spiritually abusive organizations, the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination gets the process of studying the Word of God backwards. Instead of learning from the Bible through proper exegesis and interpretation, they develop their beliefs and then find scripture to support those beliefs. This, I would say is the underlying foundation of spiritual abuse. Manipulating the Bible to make it say what you want it to say so that it supports your beliefs is the very foundation of spiritual abuse. This allows the organization to say or do whatever it wants and say/do it all in the name of Scripture. The usual method is to take a verse out of context so that it supports the belief then manipulate people into thinking that is the meaning of that particular verse.

    It is of utmost importance that we handle the Bible carefully and accurately. And in order to do that we MUST have the ability to detect and avoid exegetical fallacies. When it comes to the Bible Context is King. Anyone can make the Bible support any belief that they hold. The key is finding what the Bible is really saying about a particular topic. It’s not easy but it’s so worth it.

    As an example I would like to share a recent discussion I had with someone who was portraying this mindset. The topic was faith healing and my opponent was arguing that the Lord extends healing to everyone the same way He does salvation. Basically she was saying that just like Salvation is available to all who ask, so is healing of physical illness, all we have to do is ask and have faith. She stated that “God is no respecter of persons so why should we think that he picks and chooses whom he will heal”. Well there are three major flaws in that argument.

    • First, common sense will tell you that can’t possibly be true. I have known many people who have asked for healing and had the faith in God to heal them but were not healed.


    • Second, the verse she was referring to is Acts 10:34. If you read the context it is Peter talking to Cornelius, and they were talking about spreading the Gospel of Christ to, not only the Jew, but also to the Gentile. Peter stated (to paraphrase) that he is now realizing that God will no longer show favoritism (favoritism in the NIV “respecter of persons” in the KJV) to Israel and will make his Gospel message available to the gentile as well. Son after that you will read that the Holy Spirit is made available to the Gentiles. So we see that that verse has nothing to do with faith healing. My opponent simply took that verse way out of context and falsely used it to support her beliefs.


    • Third, if you believe that healing is distributed is a manner paralleling salvation then you must also believe the same is true for wealth, happiness, etc. You can’t just apply that to healing.

    Exegesis and proper interpretation of scripture in context should come first. Beliefs should then follow based on that exegesis. It is abusive to take a verse out of context and apply it to a topic in order to support a specific belief.

  3. Legalism
  4. Probably the most obvious characteristic of the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination is it’s legalistic mentality, its focus on the law rather than grace. The Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination blends the ceremonial laws of the OT Israelites with the moral law and the NT covenant. These laws become enmeshed and are confused with God’s design for the New Testament Church. What’s worse yet is that the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination picks and chooses which OT laws it will follow making this characteristic much more confusing and abusive.

    For example, the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination chooses to abide by the “Ye shall not… print any marks upon you” (KJV) ["Do not... put tattoo marks on yourselves" (NIV)] Leviticus 19:28, but ignores “neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee” (KJV) ["Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material," (NIV)] Leviticus 19:19. For reasons that are never explained, it is wrong to get a tattoo but it is ok to wear a polyester/cotton blend shirt. I grew up thinking that I was doomed for hell if I got a tattoo. (I now have a tattoo by the way :-)

    Performance of the law is a way to gain favor with God and a way to make God like us more. Those who are successful are put on a pedestal and those who can’t measure up are considered rebellious and outcasts. Grace is never spoken of except as it relates to salvation. Rules, laws, and standards are the litmus to gage a “good” Christian. Works and doing things correctly becomes most important and relationship is emphasized very little if at all.

    We must remember that God desires a relationship with us. As we draw closer to him in intimate relationship the behavior then falls into place based on our individual convictions.

  5. Authoritarian
  6. Another very distinctive characteristic of the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination is the emphasis on absolute obedience to church authority. Because the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination believes they have been established by God as the correct church, the leaders claim to be an extension of the authority of God.

    To give you an idea of what authoritarian means, picture in your mind a military General. The solders under his/her command are expected to obey him/her and follow his/her orders immediately and without question. To question or to belay an order is the same as disobedience and subject to punishment.

    Just like a military General, leaders in the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination exercise complete or almost complete control over the wills of others. My church had a popular saying: “Delayed obedience is disobedience”. This was mainly in reference to children obeying their parents, but it also applied to church attendees and workers obeying the leaders and also Christians obeying God. As far as I know this isn’t in the Bible. I at least couldn’t find any reference to it. Perhaps if an astute reader who knows of a place where this can at least be implied from reading the Bible I would appreciate him/her letting me know.

    Many leaders in the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination back up this teaching by using Matthew 23:1-2 “sit in Moses’ seat,” which is interpreted as a position of spiritual authority. The assumption is that God operates among His people through a hierarchy, or “chain of command.” In this abusive system unconditional submission is often called a “covering,” or “umbrella of protection” which will provide some spiritual blessing to those who fully submit. Followers are told that God will bless their submission even if the leadership is wrong. It is not their place to judge or correct the leadership – God will see to that.

    This abusive characteristic extends to the family as well with the Father/Husband seen as the authoritarian leader of the family and the wife and children as submissive. The father has an obligation, under threat of punishment from God for not properly leading his family, to rule over his wife and children. Spanking becomes a normal method for punishing children and is justified by using scripture (Click Here to read more on Spanking).

    This authoritarian view of leadership is also projected onto God and his authority over us. God is portrayed as a “cosmic-killjoy” just waiting for someone to screw up so that he can exact his punishment. The Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination paints a picture of God also as one who is a military leader, unhappy with all the disobedience happening among his people and patiently waiting for when he can punish us and correct our deviant behavior.

  7. Image Conscious
  8. The Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination is meticulous to maintain an image of righteousness. The organization’s history is often misrepresented in the effort to demonstrate the organization’s special relationship to God. The mistaken judgments and character flaws of its leaders are denied or covered up in order to validate their authority and project an image of perfection. Impossibly high legalistic standards of thought and behavior are imposed on the congregation. Their failure to live up to these standards signifies rebellion and represents a constant reminder of his/her inferiority to the leaders, and the necessity of submission to them. The leaders exploit this to gain more control of their congregations.

    I remember sitting in church one evening listening to a guest speaker. As he started he came to a place in his sermon where it became necessary to make a self disclosure of his past sinfulness. As he started he became really serious and announced with deep regret that he had once told a lie several years ago. He asked the congregation to forgive him and then proceeded with the sermon. I was a little confused by this at the time. I was torn between a desire to bow at his feet and worship him for such holiness and perfection and the desire to find out if that is all he had really done. Now that I know better, I understand how difficult it was for this person to show the congregation that he wasn’t perfect. He acted like that one lie was the worst sin he had ever committed and that if it weren’t for that one lie he would have lived a perfect life. His desire was to paint a picture for the congregation of perfection. Of course I, sitting in my pew, knowing all the things I had done wrong, am wondering how I will even make it home without God smiting me let alone get into heaven.

    All blessings, from God as well as the church leaders, come through performance of spiritual requirements. Failure is strongly condemned so there is only one alternative, perfection. What many don’t realize, however, is that the more perfection one displays the more arrogance and pride they develop. But that pride is never questioned or disciplined. Somehow the pride that accompanies increases in perfection, isn’t wrong. Those who fail in their efforts to gain perfection are labeled as weak, rebellious, unfaithful, etc. Not being able to live up to the perfection expectations of the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination, many people turn to suicide as a way out. Since perfection is impossible for mere human beings, failure is often inevitable and met with depression (which is also a sin in the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination by the way), heavy guilt, repeat confessions and

    I remember feeling like a failure so many times for not being able to live up to the standards set by my Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination church. I remember classmates who’s aspirations included the mission field or church ministry were put up on a pedestal and honored and made examples of what one is supposed to do. Those who had no such aspirations had to make them up in order to get approval and respect from teachers, church leaders and other classmates.

    This is an underlying theme for Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination spiritual abuse. People are not allowed to be themselves. They are made to fit into a particular mold and if people don’t conform they are shunned and rejected as outcasts. Association with these “outcasts” in any way signified a waiver in the faithfulness of one’s commitment to the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination. I’m just starting to learn who I am as a person. My healing from this abusive characteristic has lead me on a journey to find out who the real me is. When I learned about this characteristic I realized for the first time that God likes me the way he made me, flaws and all. It’s very freeing actually to be able to approach God knowing that he accepts me for who I am and I don’t have to put on a false image to appear better than I really am. God isn’t fooled by that anyway.

  9. Black and White Thinking
  10. There was a saying in the church I grew up in, “There are NO gray areas!” Everything is either right or wrong, black or white, good or evil, sinful or not sinful, etc. in the teachings of the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination. There is no middle ground. In the counseling world, this is called a cognitive distortion or thinking error and in the philosophy arena its a false dichotomy logical fallacy.

    When we fall victim to Black and White Thinking, we have mistakenly reduced an entire spectrum of possibilities down to the two most extreme options, each the polar opposite of the other without any shades of gray in between. Often, those categories are of our own creation, and we are attempting to force the world to conform to our preconceptions about what it should look like.

    As an all-too-common example, many people in the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination insist that whoever is not “with” us must therefore be “against” us – and can then justifiably treat those who are “against us” as an enemy. This dichotomy assumes that there are only two possible categories – with us and against us – and that everything and everyone must belong to either the former or the latter. Possible shades of gray, like agreeing with our principles but not our methods, are ignored entirely.

    Black-and-white thinking defines two opposites that are opposites in every way, meaning that there is no overlap or potential for compromise. There is no gray zone because the opposites cannot co-exist but must cancel out each other—or so it seems. One opposite is defined as being absolutely good and the other is defined as being absolutely evil, thus setting up an inevitable, to-the-death struggle between them.

    The result of this manipulation is that the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination has adopted a very simplistic view of the world. Their teachings are completely true and all others are completely false. There is no room for any nuances in between, which means that people almost inevitably become extremists and fanatics – hence the term “Fundamental” in the very name of the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination. This is a very easy approach to life because it really doesn’t require people to think for themselves. They simply accept the definitions created by the leaders without making any personal attempts to question or discern whether they are right according to the truth of the Word of God. They believe what the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination teaches and holds as truth is absolutely right and that God himself would agree with them and them only.

    Because of this, it can be extremely difficult for Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination followers to admit that they are wrong. Such people tend to become very defensive and hostile toward anyone who questions the validity of their traditions and doctrine and therefore become unapproachable. This is why the scribes and the Pharisees wanted Jesus dead and why some people in the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination become fanatical in defending their “truth.”

  11. Confusing Absolutes, Preferences, and Convictions
  12. Similar to Black and white Thinking the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination confused absolutes, preferences, and convictions. Absolutes would be things that would be considered absolutes such as Christ’s death, burial and resurrection and are pretty much universal. Preferences would be considered something that is neither right or wrong but is just a preference such as the Pastor prefers to pray before the sermon starts or I prefer the color blue over the color red. Preferences are highly individualized, however, they are flexible enough to “let go of” for the sake of harmony. Convictions are also highly individualized and are between the individual and the Lord. Convictions should not be compromised and include such things as a conviction that we are admonished to take care of our environment.

    The problem with the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination is that, because of their Doctrine of Separation and their Black and White thinking (see above) they enmesh absolutes, preferences, and convictions and make them all absolutes. They take what should be a personal preference or an individual conviction and make it an absolute. The Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination pushed their convictions and preferences on its members and makes them believe that they are absolutes, either right or wrong.

    When a preference or conviction becomes a dogmatic must or should emotional disturbance results. People get confused and lose all sense of their individual relationship with the Lord. That confusion turns into anger and relationship with God is decreased or even lost all together. Albert Ellis, a famous Psychologist who developed the Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy in the Psychology field, coined the term “musterbation” (not to be confused with masturbation) which refers to a kind of irrational belief that something should or must be the way you want it to be. He said that this kind of a belief produces maladaptive anger. I guess it’s no wonder why I’ve been so angry after my abusive experience with the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination.

For people who are caught up in a religious system or group, he/she becomes entrapped in the patterns and traditions of the abusers over a period of time. The group tends to mold the psyche of victim so that he/she starts to use the beliefs, rituals, traditions, etc. or the group in resolving their life problem. The most distinctive characteristic of a spiritually abusive religious system, or leader, is the over-emphasis on authority. Because a group claims to have been established by God or is supposed to be directly linked to God for their decisions and (it is further believed that) God Himself directs the leader in this system as having the right to command the followers. This authority supposedly comes from the position they occupy. The abusive religious system is scrupulous to maintain an image of righteousness.

The organization’s history is often misrepresented in the effort to demonstrate the organization’s special relationship to God and normally full of stories, experiences and testimonials. The leaders portray themselves as never being wrong so the mistaken judgments and character flaws of its leaders are denied or covered up in order to validate their authority. Impossibly high legalistic standards of thought and behavior may be imposed upon the members. Their failure to live up to these standards is a constant reminder of the follower’s disloyalty and inferiority to his leaders and the necessity of submission to them.

The attitude of groups by way of some rituals and customs leads to members to be secretive about some doctrines and the inner policies and procedures of the group. Leaders, especially, will keep secrets from their members. This secrecy is rooted in a basic distrust of others because the belief system itself is false and cannot stand before scrutiny. Because the religious system is not based on the truth it cannot allow questions, dissent, or open discussions about issues. The person who disagrees becomes the problem to system rather than the issue that has been raised. Questioning anything is considered a challenge to authority and rebellious against God. Thinking for personal opinion is suppressed by pointing out that it leads to doubts. This is portrayed as unbelief in God and His anointed leaders. Thus the follower controls his own thoughts by fear of doubting God.

A most obvious assumption of such group is that a person does not get something for nothing. If you want something from God, then there must be a sacrifice in lieu! Apart from the express declarations of salvation by grace through faith God has given in the scriptures, it would be natural to think that one must earn salvation, or at least work to keep it. Thus, in abusive religions all blessings come through performance of spiritual requirements. Failure is strongly condemned so there is only one alternative, repetition and perfection. So long as the victim thinks he/she is succeeding in his/her observation of the rules, the follower typically exhibits pride, elitism, and arrogance. However, when reality and failure eventually set in, the result is the persons experience of spiritual burnout, or even shipwreck of his/her faith. Those who fail in their efforts are labeled as apostates, weak, or some other such term so that they can be discarded by the system.

Spiritual abuse has a devastating effect on people. A very high level of trust is often placed in spiritual leaders. It is, and ought to be, expected that the trust will be honored and guarded. When such trust is violated the wound is very deep. Sometimes the wound is so deep that the wounded person cannot trust even a legitimate spiritual authority again. The main symptom is the inability to relate normally to people who represent the source of their emotional injury or hurt. Besides an unhealthy fear of, and disillusionment with, spiritual authorities, the spiritually abused person may find it difficult to trust even God. Anger and bitterness towards life is also deeply felt. Such legitimate anger or bitterness if not properly channeled and dealt with, can degenerate into bitterness and cynicism toward everything that is supposed to be spiritual.

Healthy recovery from spiritual abuse must begin with an understanding of what has happened and how it has happened. It is typical for the victim of spiritual abuse to think he/she is the only one experiencing these problems. Many time the abuse will lead to self-condemnation tendencies and frustration. It is essential for the victim of spiritual abuse to learn about the true nature of God’s grace, love and forgiveness. This is the foundation for being able to eventually forgive the abuser. Much time must be allowed for full recovery. Victims of spiritual abuse must implement many resources and a change in perspective to regain their psychological equilibrium and be restored to spiritual wellness.

At the beginning of recovery, it is not uncommon for the victim of spiritual abuse to become overwhelmed with a mixture of feelings such as shock, anger, confusion, sadness. Grieving over losses is vital in recovery. Grieving may continues for longer period. It will be of utmost importance for the victim of spiritual abuse to dissociate the abuse from God. Victims must often re-learn who God really is and His true nature. It is often difficult for victims to change their view of God and to apply those changes to their lives. This is a foundation to recovery.

Doctrine of Separation Deception

January 12th, 2009 2 comments

Central Beliefs

The Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination lists 5 distinct doctrines or beliefs (click here). Central to their beliefs is the idea of Separation and this, I believe, is where the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination goes completely wrong and this one thing skews the entire denomination making it invalid. Keep in mind that the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination is exclusivistic, meaning that they believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Add to this the belief of Separation and you have a combination that is not only incredibly unbiblical, but also very dangerous and damaging to the name of Christianity.

Here is a run down of the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination’s “doctrine” of Separation:

SEPARATION: We believe that we are called to be a separated people to abide in Christ, to walk in the Spirit and to enjoy victory over the world, the flesh and the devil. (Romans 12:1-2; Galatians 5:16; I John 2:15- 17; Colossians 3:1-17 and II Corinthians 2:14).

OUR RESOLUTION ON SEPARATION: Whereas the practice of inclusivism is infiltrating fundamentalism, and whereas fundamentalism is a movement of separation, be it therefore resolved that we re-affirm our historic separatist position by observing Scripture.

  • SEPARATION FROM DOCTRINAL SCHISMATICS AND APOSTATES:
    1. “Mark them” (Philippians 3:17-18)
    2. “Avoid them” (Romans 16:17-18)
    3. “Identify them’! (I Timothy 1:20; II Timothy 1:15,4:14)
    4. “From such turn away” (II Timothy 3:5)
    5. “Reprove them” (Ephesians 5: 11)
    6. “Have no fellowship with them” (Ephesians 5:11)
    7. “Be not unequally yoked together with” (II Corinthians 6: 14-16)
    8. “Come out from among them” (II Corinthians 6:17)
    9. “Reject them” (Titus 3: 10).
  • SEPARATION FROM DISOBEDIENT SAINTS AND APPEASERS:
    1. “Note that man” (II Thessalonian 3:14)
    2. “Withdraw yourself” (II Thessalonian 3:14)
    3. “Have no company with” (II Thessalonian 3:14)
    4. “Rebuke them sharply” (Titus 1:13)
    5. “Admonish him as a brother” (II Thessalonian 3:15)
    6. “Count him not an enemy” (II Thessalonian 3:15)
    7. “Keep not company” (I Corinthians 5:11)
    8. “With such an one, no, not to eat” (I Corinthians 5:11)
  • SEPARATION IN SOUL-WINNING ACTIVITY:
    1. Jude 22-23, “And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.” Be it further resolved that while’ adhering to this separatist position, we “let brotherly love continue” – Hebrews 13:1.

This is the doctrinal stance that is the foundation for the spiritual abuse that happens in the IFB churches. As you can plainly see, the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination is blatantly pulling scripture out of context, misinterpreting it, and manipulating so that is supports this doctrine. It is because of this belief that the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination teaches that Christians should be as completely separate from the world as possible. The abuse begins when they interpret something that someone does, says, eats, drinks, thinks, etc. that is in the least remotely associated with the world. When the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination pushes this belief on others it leaves no other option than to judge others to see if they measure up to their standard of living. when a person fails to measure up, they are seen as rebellious, living in sin, and in some instances unsaved. This is judgementalism in it’s purest form.

As you can imagine, since everyone lives in this world already, this is a very tall order, one that is unattainable. This doctrine is the foundation upon which all the teachings and beliefs of the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination rest. The Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination has very strict standards that include everything and anything that could be considered deviation from their separation doctrine. Anything that gives the appearance of “worldliness” Such things as going to the movies, drinking alcohol, smoking, listening to secular music, listening to Christian contemporary music, certain styles of dress, certain styles of hair, tattoos, motorcycles, dancing, and the list goes on and on, are considered a violation of their separation doctrine and thus sinful.

The members of the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination call themselves “Bible Believing” Christians. They make the claim that they are the only ones who truly believe the Bible. All others (other churches/denominations/fellowships) are misinterpreting the Bible and spreading false doctrine. They teach that if you don’t go to an Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination church than you are believing a different message, especially if that other church doesn’t use the King James Version of the Bible.

The heretic

I would like to illustrate this topic with a story. It’s meant to be a funny story but considering the context and how real it really is, it’s not so funny after all because most Baptists really think this way.

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, “Stop! Don’t do it!” “Why shouldn’t I?” he said. I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!” He said, “Like what?” I said, “Well, are you religious or atheist?” He said, “Religious.” I said, “Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?” He said, “Christian.” I said, “Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, “Baptist!” I said, “Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!” I said, “Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?” He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God!” I said, “Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?” He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!” I said, “Die, heretic scum!” and pushed him off.

(attributed to Emo Phillips).

Overview of the IFB Church

January 12th, 2009 76 comments

Overview of the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination


A Brief Survey Of Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches: What They are and What is Their History

Contents:

WHAT IS AN INDEPENDENT FUNDAMENTAL BAPTIST CHURCH?

The name Independent Fundamental Baptist Church is used traditionally by churches which pattern themselves strictly after the example of the early church as found in the New Testament. Today the name Baptist is used by many churches who are not truly following the teachings of the New Testament. Thus the words “Independent” and “Fundamental” have been added by many Baptist churches to further identify themselves as truly Bible believing churches and to show a distinction between themselves and Baptist churches who were not following God’s word. Most “Baptist” churches were in the past founded on the sound doctrinal teachings of the New Testament, however, many of them have in varying degrees drifted away from many of the teachings of the Scriptures. Some of these churches have gone so far to even deny the fundamental teachings of the Bible, such as the deity of Christ, the virgin birth and salvation by the Grace of God, through faith. Others have to a lesser degree compromised the Word of God by their teaching, practices and church polity trying to confront to popular religious tends. These worldly churches still call themselves “Baptists” but in fact they do not believe or practice what true Baptists have historically believed and more importantly what the Word of God says. The true Independent Fundamental Baptists have no association or fellowship with these churches because they teach or practice things contrary to the New Testament.

The name Fundamental Independent Baptist is of recent origin and came into being because many modern day Baptist churches compromising the Word of God and teaching and practicing false doctrines. There were however, many Baptists who loved the Word of God and held true to it and refused to abandon teaching the New Testament. In order to distinguish between the doctrinally unsound Baptist churches and those that believed the Bible many Baptist churches changed their name. These true Baptists added the adjectives Fundamental and Independent to their name in order that they not be identified with the false practices and teaching of the doctrinally unsound churches using the Baptist name.

The word “Independent” means that the church is not a member of any council, convention or is a part of any hierarchy outside the local congregation. An Independent Baptist Church would not be apart of a national organization that would exercise authority over the local church. Thus, the name “independent” means that the church patterns itself after the New Testament example and stands alone under the authority of the Bible. Independent churches have no organized organization over them in authority. They direct their own affairs under the authority of the New Testament Scriptures, free from the outside interference. The New Testament teaches that Christ is the head of the church,(Eph. 5:23) and the Chief Shepherd )1 Peter 5:4). The local pastor is the shepherd (Heb. 13:17, Acts 20:28, Eph. 4:11) or leader of the congregation. The Independent Baptist church has a congregational form of government with each member having the right of the vote and all the affairs of the churches are conducted by the local congregation following the guidelines of the New Testament.

Independent Fundamental Baptist churches have fellowship one with the other and often cooperate in such things as evangelism. They, however, will only fellowship or cooperate in joint meetings with churches of like belief. They will not participate, on a church basis, or any outside function with churches which do not also strictly base their faith and practice on the New Testament. They will not engage in joint meetings, or evangelistic endeavors, with Protestants, Catholics, or other doctrinally unsound church groups, who do not hold to the fundamental teachings of the New Testament. Examples: Billy Graham, Promise Keepers. Fundamental Independent Baptists church will remain separate from these churches as well as other Baptists groups who participate with the unscriptural churches. They practice the Biblical teachings of separation as stated in Ephesians 5:11, which says, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. ” The Independent Baptist believes that to join with churches who teach and practice false doctrine is condone and even show approval of Biblical error and that all doctrinal error is sin.

The church government of many Independent Baptist churches are to have pastors and deacons as officers of the local church. (1 Tim. 3:1-16) However, some Independent Baptist churches do not accept that the word “officer” is the proper biblical term to be used and particularly does not apply to deacons. (For a explanation of the biblical role of deacons please go to http://bible-truth.org/deacon.html

The pastor of the church is called by majority vote of the congregation. Men meeting the Biblical qualification of deacons (servants) (1 Tim. 3:8-13) are appointed from the local congregation and approved by the majority vote. Many Baptist churches have Trustees, but their position was established in order to have legal “signatories” to sign legal documents of the church. Biblically neither Deacons or Trustees are a governing body, or a “board,” but titles of special appointed servants who serve at the will of the pastor and congregation. In a biblical church the pastor is the “overseers” or leaders of the congregation. (See Acts 20:28, Hebrews 13:7)

The word “Fundamental” means that the Baptist church uses the New Testament strictly as its authority for faith (doctrine) and practice. In recent years the news media has called doctrinally unsound church such as the Charismatics and Pentecostals “fundamentalists. ” Even some TV evangelists have referred to themselves as being “fundamentalist. ” But they should not be confused with Fundamental Baptists. They are worlds apart. Many of the TV evangelists and all of the Charismatic and Pentecostal churches promote teachings which are not Biblical. Fundamental Baptist use the name in its strictest sense as meaning holding to the fundamentals of the New Testament teachings without error. True Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches uphold the purest teachings of the early church as revealed in the New Testament.

BAPTISTS ARE NOT PROTESTANTS

Baptists are not Protestants! The name Protestant was given to those churches which came out of Roman Catholicism during the Reformation which began in the 1500s. It originally applied through the 1700′s to Lutherans, and Anglicans. Later Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Methodist were added to the lists of Protestants denominations. Though many people including Webster’s Dictionary refers Baptists as being Protestants, it is not correct to refer to them as such or to lump all non-Catholic denominations in one group and label them Protestant. Historically, Baptists were never a part of the Roman Catholic Church or the Protestant Reformation and therefore can not be correctly called “protestors” or Protestants.

Its is true that many Baptists left the ranks of Protestant churches which were doctrinal unsound and apostate. They left these churches because of their strong conviction the Word of God should not be compromised. Some formed new churches and called themselves Baptists to make it clear that they believed and followed the New Testament. It is not historically correct to identify Baptists as Catholic “protestors” who left the Roman church. In the many books on church history which make up the bibliography for this paper, there is not one recorded incident of a Baptist church beginning founded out of Roman Catholicism. Protestants for centuries saw the Baptists as their “enemies” and murdered them by the thousands in the name of Protestantism. It is surely an affront to any historically informed Baptist identify him by the name of a group that has so hated and persecuted them down throughout history.

There have always existed, from the time of Christ, New Testament churches which were not a part of the Roman Church. In fact the Roman Church can only trace its history back to 313 AD when the Roman Emperor Constantine made Christianity a legal religion. In 395 AD, Emperor Contantius “Christianized” Rome and made the worship of idols punishable by death. By 400 AD, the Emperor Theodosius had declared Christianity the only state religion of the Roman Empire. Many churches by this time had come under the domination of the Rome government and had ceased from being New Testament churches. When the Roman Emperor declared Christianity the religion of Rome, he in mass “converted” hordes of pagans which made up the Empire. Pagan temples became the meetinghouses for “Christians.” Rome, then hired unregenerate pagan priests as “Christian” ministers. The influx of these falsely converted pagans is one reason Roman Catholicism came to have so many idolatrous and pagan beliefs.

However, in the midst of all this apostasy, which was the founded the Roman Catholic church, there were groups of Christians who were never a part of the “Christianization” of the Roman Empire. These New Testament believers rejected every attempt to include them in with the other churches who compromised and accepted the Roman government’s money, rule and authority.

The over the years the growth of so many false and idolatrous practices caused some within the Catholic church such as Martin Luther to rebel, and to try to “reform” the Catholic church. This was the birth of Protestant churches. Although, many Protestants returned in part to a belief in the Bible as their authority for their faith and practice, not one of them EVER completely left all the doctrinal errors and false teachings of the apostate Roman Catholic church. There is not one Protestant church that is doctrinally pure following the example and polity of the New Testament.

Protestants have never accepted the principle of separation of church and state. In Europe, Protestant churches are “state” churches and supported to some degree by government imposed taxes. In Germany, the state church is Lutheran and in England, the Anglican church, France, the Roman Catholic Church, etc.

The idea the bread and wine (grape juice) in the Lord’s Supper becoming the physical body of Christ when taken is a Roman Catholic teaching that Protestants only changed slightly. Martin Luther until his death held to this false sentiment and disputed with the Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), over the matter. Still today, many Protestants see the Lord’s Supper as a sacrament, having to some degree saving properties or giving some spiritual benefit. True New Testament Christians have always rejected such unbiblical ideas.

Protestants still practice infant baptism which is not taught in the Word of God. Many Protestant denominations still hold to the writings of their church fathers as a source of church doctrine and have never accepted the Bible as their sole source of teachings for their faith and practice, which is a foundational teaching of Catholicism. They all hold to a system of hierarchy in church government and do not accept the autonomy the local church. The New Testament teaches the absolute autonomy of each local church who is to govern itself as the Word of God instructs free from outside authority and control.

Baptists, basing their beliefs solely on the Bible, and in particularly the New Testament, have never held to these teachings and see them as heresy. Thus, history and the doctrines of Protestantism clearly show that Baptists are not Protestants.

WHO WERE THE FIRST BAPTISTS?

In determining who were the first Baptists, you must first identify who you are referring to. You could mean those persons or churches which held to the Baptists beliefs although they may not have called themselves Baptists. Or second, you could be referring to those who held to Baptist beliefs and were called by the name Baptist.

It is difficult to trace Baptist churches down through history. Some Baptist historians, have made attempts at doing this, but in many cases refer to groups as early Baptists who did not in fact hold to pure Baptist beliefs as held today. They tried to establish that “according to history, Baptists have an unbroken line of churches since Christ”. (Quote from Dr. J. M. Carroll’s booklet “The Trail of Blood”) These historians, in an attempt to show an unbroken line of Baptists in history, have embraced groups which were clearly not doctrinal sound.

In the simplest of terms a true Baptist assembly is one which follows the New Testament as his sole authority for his faith and practice. Whether these groups of believers called themselves Baptists or not, if they were doctrinally pure, following the New Testament for their faith and practice they were New Testament churches and thus they can be called Baptistic. The point is the name Baptist in the beginning was used to designate a true New Testament assembly that was biblically sound. They many have been called by various names, before assemblies used the name Baptist. The crucial point is not that they called themselves Baptists, but they followed the Bible as their sole authority for faith and practice. The connection with past churches for the modern Baptist is not the name, but rather their doctrine and practice.

Some Baptists such as the Landmark Baptist and those often referred to as
Baptists Briders”, infer they can trace their history back to John the Baptist who was the first Baptist. However, John the Baptist was an Old Testament saint and the last Old Testament prophet (Matt. 3:3). He did not belong to, nor was part of the any “ekklesia.” Yes he baptized, but His baptism was the baptism of repentance (Matt. 3:2) for Jews who were preparing for coming Messiah and Kingdom God had promised them. John was beheaded by Herod (Matt. 14) before the Lord Jesus announced the coming establishment of the “ekklesia.” (Matt 16:18). John was God’s true prophet and the forerunner of the Messiah Jesus Christ, but he was not a part of the dispensation of the institution of the local church.

In examining many so-called early “Baptist” churches you find many doctrinal errors and false teaching. Surely, no church that practiced false doctrine, as many of these groups did, can in truth be called a Baptist church. It is my conviction that it is not possible to “trace” an unbroken line of Baptist churches from Christ until today. However, let me strongly say there has always existed an unbroken line of churches who have not erred from the faith, and been true to the Bible, God’s Word. In fact Jesus emphatically stated in Matt. 16:18, concerning preserving the institution of the local church, that even “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Doctrinally sound New Testament churches have always existed from the time of Christ and the Apostles until today. To call these people Baptists or Baptistic, in the sense the believed the Bible and followed it as their sole authority for faith and practice, in the same way true Baptist churches do today, is acceptable, although it serves no purpose. To say there is a unbroken line or succession of Baptist churches from the time of Christ until today cannot be shown from history.

It cannot be stated too often that the importance of these churches was not in their name, but in what they believed and practiced. These churches patterned themselves strictly after the New Testament example, and this made them valid churches approved of God. This is the true heritage the Fundamental Baptists holds dear, there have always been assemblies which submitted themselves only to the sole authority of the Word of God. It is difficult to document these congregations because they were rarely in the spot light of history.

For an example there is Patrick of Ireland. Patrick was born in Scotland in 360 AD and sold into slavery at age sixteen and carried to Ireland. Later, he escaped and became a Christian missionary. Although the Roman Catholic Church claims him as one of their “saints,” there is no evidence he even knew the Catholic church existed. In his writings he appears ignorant of the practices of the Roman Church and never refers to church councils, creeds, traditions or even to the existence of a pope. There was no hierarchy in the churches he founded, which were patterned after the simple New Testament example. These churches were missions minded and formed schools to train preachers and missionaries. Later in history, around 600 AD, Austin, Catholic monk, was sent to Britain by Pope Gregory the Great. King Ethelbert and his court, and a considerable part of his kingdom, were won over by the successful monk. (David Benedict, A General History of the Baptist Denomination in American, and Other Parts of the World, London: Lincoln and Edmands, Nr. 53, Cornhill, 1813, Fundamental Baptist CD ROM Library, 1701 Harns Rd. , Oak Harbor, Washington 98277) Under the Roman Catholic influence these missionary centers diverged into monasticism. However, history is clear that in the beginning and into the 9th Century there were churches in Britain that rejected pedo-baptism, popery and other false doctrines of the Catholics. These churches remained sound in doctrine and practicing the faith of the New Testament. These churches are good examples of Bible believing churches that existed independent of the Roman Catholic Church, and were for some time not corrupted by its influences. They were in fact churches founded on the same New Testament principles that modern day Baptists traditionally founded their churches.

Some have pointed to the Anabaptists as the examples of early Baptist churches. This again cannot be proven from history. The Anabaptists were mostly a God-fearing group of people. They loved the Lord and many of them gave their lives and fortunes for the sake of Christ. However, history does not record even one Anabaptist group or church becoming or founding a Baptist church. Most of the Anabaptists successors became the Mennonites, Amish and Quakers. Not one Baptist church can show in its history a direct succession from the Anabaptists. Many Anabaptists churches were strong New Testament churches believing and following the Word of God. Other Anabaptists groups were in gross error and corrupted. As with any true New Testament church, its validity as a true church approved of God, does not, nor or ever did rest on its name or upon a succession of churches, but on its adherence to the principles of God’s Word.

Some Baptist churches believe in a succession of Baptist churches who passed down the authority to baptize and give the Lord’s Supper. It is my conviction that this is contrary to the very foundation of what is a true New Testament church. A true New Testament church bases its faith, practice and authority solely in the Word of God. To hold to the “secessionist” position takes the authority away from the New Testament and places it in the hands of man. Secessionism is the gross error of Catholicism. God said He would preserve His church and that task was not left in the hands of fallible men or groups. God, I believe deliberately used isolated groups in many different places during time to preserve His church and did not choose to use a line or chain of churches to past His Word and authority on to the next generation. He preserved His word and the Word preserved a true Gospel witness during every moment of history since Pentecost. What possible value is there in appealing to a supposed unbroken line of Baptist churches as a church’s authority. There is every value in appealing only to present adherence to the New Testament as one’s sole authority for faith and practice.

The best illustration of this point can be made this way. Suppose an airplane flew over some isolated country that had no past or present contact with anyone else in the world. Further, suppose that a Bible somehow was to fall from the plane and the inhabitants of this isolated land were to be able to pick up that Bible and read the text for themselves. Suppose too that some of them on reading that Bible were to believe and repent of their sins and place their trust in God’s Son and His redemption for personal sin. These new believers would then, following the New Testament example, submit to believer’s baptism and organize a local church. That local body of baptized believers would be as valid a true New Testament church as any church Christ ever founded. Why, because it was founded on God’s Word and there is no necessity that it have contact with some other church which belongs to a succession of churches. It is a historic fact the first Baptist church in America was founded by another Baptist congregation. It was founded by Roger Williams, according to the teachings and example of the New Testament. The Gospel is to be preached throughout the world by believers empowered by the Holy Spirit as Acts 1:8 plainly states. When a congregation results from the preaching of the Gospel, authenticating that congregation as a New Testament church rests solely on its doctrine and practice….not in its affiliation.

WHEN AND WHERE WAS THE FIRST RECORDED BAPTIST CHURCH IN HISTORY

Benedict in his history of the Baptists states the Gospel was preached in Britain within sixty years of the Lord’s return to heaven. These churches appear to have been baptistic and remained sound until Austin, the Catholic monk brought Catholicism to the Isles in 597 AD. He states there were Baptists in England 1400 AD. He mentions a man named William Sawtre, who was identified as a Lollard and Baptist, was the first person burned at the stake after Henry IV’s 1400 AD decree to burn heretics. Benedict states that the English Roman Catholics in 1535, put to death twenty two Baptists for heresies. In 1539 thirty one more who had fled to Holland were apprehended and martyred there. He records that five hundred others who were identified as Anabaptists were also killed in England during this period. After Henry VII separated England from the Roman Catholic Church the Baptist faired no better. Many Baptists were executed by the newly formed Church of England during what is called the “Protestant inquisition. ” (David Benedict, A General History of the Baptist Denomination in American, and Other Parts of the World, London: Lincoln and Edmands, Nr. 53, Cornhill, 1813, Fundamental Baptist CD ROM Library, 1701 Harns Rd. , Oak Harbor, Washington 98277)

The line of English churches that can be traced, who called themselves Baptists, began in 1610 in Holland. This is not to say there were no Baptists in Britain earlier, but that this began a line of churches whose history can be traced. It began with a man named John Smyth who was a bishop in the Church of England. In 1606, after nine months of soul-searching and study of the New Testament he was convinced that the doctrines and practices of the Church of England were not Biblical, and thus he resigned as priest and left the church.

Because of persecution by the Anglican church of all who disagreed with it and who refused to agree to its authority, John Smyth had to flee England. In Amsterdam, he with Thomas Helwys and thirty six others formed the first Baptist church of English people known to have stood for baptism of believers only.

Smyth, believed the only real apostolic succession is a succession of Biblical New Testament truth, and not of outward ordinances and visible organization such as the Church of England or the Roman Church. He believed the only way to recover was to form a new church based on the Bible. He then baptized himself (which is not biblical) and then the others of his congregation. In only a few years however, the church had lost all but ten members to the Mennonites and other groups in Holland. Smyth died in 1612, and the church ended in Holland shortly after that with Helwy, Thomas and John Murton returning to England as persecution there had lessened. History records the members of this Baptist church went back to England or remained in Holland and joined Mennonites. It did not produce a succession of other churches, but those who founded it went on to set up other Baptist churches in England.

Back in England these men, on returning to England, formed the first recorded Baptist church on English soil. By 1626, the churches had grown from one, to five churches and by 1644 there were forty congregations. Through preaching the New Testament, the Gospel went forth in power and the Baptist movement grew rapidly.

These first Baptist churches formed in England were Armenian in theology, which taught that all men could be saved. The Calvinistic or Particular Baptists were a different group and believed in limited atonement in which only the elect could be saved. Particular Baptist had their beginnings around 1616, when some “dissenters” left the Church of England and were lead by the Rev. Henry Jacob. By 1644, these congregations grew to seven churches.

About this time the Puritans were also becoming strong in England. The Puritans were dissenters from the Church of England. They wanted to bring reform to the Church of England. Although they were a great deal more pious than the Church of England they still practiced most of its beliefs including infant baptism. Anyone who differed with the practices of the State church were subject to great persecution. Puritans and Baptists alike, to escape persecution, migrated to the New World.

One man Hanserd Knolleys, is an example of dissenter of the Church of England who had to flee to America. He was a presbyter and former deacon in the Anglican church. Knolleys was under deep conviction of the need to preach the New Testament and follow its example as one’s rule of faith. He refused to wear the robes of his church office, and refused to let unsaved people take the Lord’s Supper. Further, he ignored the reading of the “order of service” and simply preached the Scriptures. To preach the Bible without the rituals of the Church of England was against the law. Knolleys joined other dissenters left England. In 1638, he landed in Boston and settled for a short time in Piscataway (now Dover) in New Hampshire. There he became the pastor of the Puritan church. The Puritans were in control of the colonies and in fact had set up a theocracy in which the Puritan church governed both secular and religious affairs. Because Knolleys refused to baptize infants and preached against it he was banned from the colony by the famous Puritan governor Cotton Mather. Knolleys after two years returned to England at the request of his father. He became an outspoken “Separatist” or dissenter of the State church. In 1645, he formed a Baptist church in London. Shortly after the Church of England fell from grace when the English monarch was overthrown and the Presbyterians became the favored church of the state. The Presbyterians took over the job of persecution biblical believers and forbade Knolleys from preaching in parish churches. He, however, continued to preach by holding services in his own home. One of the last acts of the Presbyterians, before the Long Parliament in England fell, was to past a law passing the death penalty on anyone who was caught holding to what they called “Eight Errors in Doctrine.” These “doctrines” included infant baptism.

Knolleys was imprisoned many times and suffered at the hands of the “State Church”. He is only one of many such godly men who would not compromise the truth. The “crime” of these men was that they believed the Bible was God’s Truth, and rejected dictates of false churches and men.

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE BAPTISTS IN AMERICA.

It is well to note the Pilgrims were also Puritans, and Puritans were Protestants who had left the Church of England. They should not be confused true Bible believing churches, because their beliefs and practices were much like the Church of England. Although, they were not as corrupt as the Church of England, they still practiced a strict ritual of church service, a state church, and among other things, infant baptism. They were intolerant to anyone who did not agree to the authority of the Puritan church, which was supported by a governmental church tax of all the people. You may admire their piety, but a true believer in the New Testament would have a great problem with many of their doctrines and especially why they persecuted the Baptists and drove them from their colonies. Everyone in the colony was automatically a member of the State church and were taxed to support it. Failure to pay the tax brought the wrath of the civil and church leaders and people were publicly beaten, placed in stocks, fined, imprisoned, and banished from the colony by the civil authorities under the direction of the Puritan church officials. Puritan churches persecuted the Baptists in America until the U. S. Constitution was made the law of the land in 1787. The first Baptist church on American soil was a direct result of the Puritan persecution of true New Testament believers.

Roger Williams is credited with founding the first Baptist church on American soil. Williams graduated from Cambridge University in 1627, and was apparently ordained in the Church of England. He soon embraced “Separatists” ideas and decided to leave England. In 1631, he arrived in Boston. He was much displeased with the Puritan theocracy. He strongly believed in separation of church and state and upheld the principles of soul liberty. “Soul liberty” is a belief that everyone is responsible to God individually. It bases its belief in the New Testament teaching that every believer is a priest to himself, having full excess to God without the need to go through a church, church leader or priest. (Hebrews 4:15-16 and 10:19-22) Despite his views he was made the pastor of the church in Salem. Shortly after that, because of his doctrinal preaching, he was forced to leave Salem and went for a short time to Plymouth. He returned to Salem where he was summoned before the court in Boston because of his outspoken beliefs and was banished from the colony. The charge recorded against him was that “he broached and divulged new and dangerous opinions against the authority of the magistrates. ” Clearly, he was banished because he believed in religious freedom and believed and taught the New Testament was a believer’s sole source for his faith and practice. His “crime” was that rejected the unbiblical ideas of a state church, infant baptism and other false teachings of the Puritans. The Puritans did not believe in such things and they drove him from their colony.

In 1638, Williams made his way to what is now Providence, Rhode Island, and there bought some land from the Indians. Some of his former congregation in Salem joined him and they set up a colony. Its beginning charter reads as follows:

“We whose names are hereunder written, being desirous to inhabit ourselves in active and passive obedience to all such orders or agencies as shall be made for the public good of the body in an orderly way, by the major consent of the present inhabitants, masters of families, incorporated together into the same, only in civil things.”

In 1663, Charles II, gave the colony a royal charter and it read:

“Our royal will and pleasure is, that no person within the said colony, at any time hereafter, shall be in any wise molested, punished disquieted, or called in question, for any differences of opinion in matters of religion, and do not actually disturb the civil peace of the said colony”

This was the first time in the history of the world that a government was established which granted religious freedom! This charter was the very cornerstone of American religious freedom! Up to this time Williams was not a Baptist. He continued to read the New Testament, and became fully aware that infant baptism, sprinkling for baptism, and allowing unsaved people to be members of the church was not Scriptural. Thus, resolving to follow the Lord’s commands in truth, in March, 1639 he formed the first Baptist church on American soil. He began by baptizing himself and then baptizing ten other members.

Shortly after that, Williams withdrew from the church and became what he called a “seeker.” History does not record why he would not identify himself as a Baptist. Please note that this presented no problem for this first Baptist church in America. This church was not founded on a man, but on the Bible. It was not founded because a line of Baptist churches down through history. It was founded because some saved men believed the Bible and wanted to follow the New Testament example of what a true church should be. Even after Williams left it, it continued to follow the New Testament and was not adversely effected. It was not the man who founded the church that was important, but the New Testament principles on which he founded this church. They called themselves Baptists because that was the best name they could choose to describe what they believed and the name identified them a Bible believing people. This church had no ties to anyone or any other church, yet this was a Baptist church as much as any Baptist church ever was. They were a New Testament church, not because of a succession of churches or men, but because they formed their church on the principles of the New Testament. That made them in the eyes of God as legitimate a church as any Paul founded. The sole authority for any true church is God’s Word and not it founder, or its heritage. Not once in the New Testament do you find even a hint that a church was legitimate because it was founded by Paul or called itself by a particular name.

However, let no one think little of the name of Baptist for it is the name that most has identified those individuals and churches who have uncompromisingly stood on the Word of God. They are the only group into modern times whose churches were founded on the Scriptures alone and not on the traditions or works of some man. Baptists have always been the champions of the Word of God and preaching of the Gospel. History is clear there is no other denomination that has so loved and been faithful to God’s Word as has the Baptists. Even the enemies of the Baptists openly recognize their zeal for the Word of God.

After Roger Williams stepped down, Thomas Olney took over as the pastor of the church in Rhode Island. Although, this was the first Baptist church to be founded on American soil there is no recorded offspring from this church and modern American Baptist churches can not trace their history directly to it. Other churches founded in New England and in the Middle colonies were the actual mother churches of modern Baptist churches as these churches were responsible for starting other churches.

On May 28, 1665, a Baptist church was founded in Boston, by Thomas Gould, who refused to accept infant baptism. There were nine original members of the church which included two women. A storm of persecution broke out because these Baptist preached what the Puritans called “damnable errors.” Most of the members of the church were fined or imprisoned or both, at one time or another. Thomas Gould, died in 1675 an untimely death, partially because of his having his health broken by several long imprisonments.

In 1678, shortly after the church had erected a new building, the Puritan controlled government nailed its doors shut and forbade anyone under penalty of the law to enter or worship there. This lasted only one Sunday however, and the following Sunday the doors were opened and services held in defiance of the order. The magistrates found their order was becoming unpopular and impossible to enforce so the church in the future was left unmolested. In 1684, a Baptist church in Maine seeking greater religious liberty was relocated to Charleston, South Carolina.

The Dutch colony of New York for a time persecuted Baptists within its territories. The first Baptist church in New York was started by William Wichendon, in 1656. He was heavily fined and then imprisoned. Being to poor to pay the fines he was banished from the colony. Later, the Dutch issued new orders and allowed religious liberty.

In 1700, a Baptist minister, William Rhodes began to hold meetings on Long Island and in 1724 organized the first Baptist church there. The most important center of early Baptist churches was around Philadelphia, “the city of brotherly love.” In 1684, Thomas Dungan started a church at Cold Springs, New York which lasted until 1702. In 1688 a Baptist church was organized at Pennepeck, Pennsylvania with twelve members. It helped start the first Baptist church in Philadelphia the following year. It became an independent church in 1746.

Offers of religious liberty drew many Baptists to settle in New Jersey. The first church was founded there in 1688, in Middletown and was made up of many who had fled persecution in the other colonies. Many churches were organized in the following years.

In other areas Baptist churches were being formed about this same time. In North Carolina the first Baptist church was started in the northeastern coastal region at Perquimans, in Chowan County in 1727.

In Virginia, Baptist were not welcome. Before the America won its independence and the Constitution became law, the Episcopal church, which was the American branch of the Church of England, was the only legal church in Virginia. There was a fine of 2000 pounds of tobacco for failure to have one’s infant children baptized. One Baptist church, however, did begin after 1714, in Surry Country, and another at Burleigh, Virginia. Virginia was especially harsh in religious persecutions. Anyone not holding Episcopal ordination was forbade to hold services. Baptists with other citizens were taxed to support the Episcopal church. It is well to note that not all Virginians felt this way. Two champions of religious liberty were the Virginians Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry. Thomas Jefferson is believed to have been deeply influenced to press for religious freedom in American, by the plight of several Baptist preachers he knew. For example inn Isle of Wight county in southeastern Virginia, Baptist preachers were taken to Nansamond River, nearly drowned by Episcopalians to show their contempt for Baptist’s beliefs in immersion and their rejection of infant Baptism. They were then tarred and feathered and ran out of the county.

The center of Baptist activity in the colonies was in the Philadelphia area, and Baptists held regular “general meetings” of the churches for devotional and evangelistic purposes there.

It can be historically determined that forty seven Baptist churches were in existence before the Great Awakening. All but seven were above the Mason-Dixon line. Baptist continued to grow in numbers through the period of the Great Awakening and up to the time of the Revolutionary War. Baptist as a whole were patriots and many Baptist pastors served as chaplains in the Revolutionary Army. The Great Awakening stirred religious interests in the colonies and a reported great revival took place. The Revolutionary War for some time slowed the growth of Baptist churches. However, after independence was won and the Constitutional written giving all Americans religious freedom, the Baptist again began to grow until today they are the largest denomination in the United States.

WHAT MAKES A TRUE BAPTIST?

Today there are at least a hundred different groups which all themselves “Baptist.” Many of these churches have conflicting beliefs and practices. The natural question then to ask is, “What makes a person a true Baptist?” In examining the history of Baptists and determining what makes up a genuine and true Baptist, five distinctives should be noted. These five distinctive beliefs separate the true Baptists from other groups who have mistakenly taken the name Baptist and all non New Testament churches such as the Protestants. Examine any church in light of these five distinctive it will be shown if they are true historical Baptist congregation which is synonymous with what is a true biblical New Testament church.

It is well also to note that these five distinctives are traits also of the true New Testament church! These distinctives are the distinctives taught in Bible which constitute a true New Testament church. The one thing that makes one a Baptist is that historically they have followed the New Testament alone as its sole rule for faith and practice. Baptists strongly insist that God’s Word is not up for arbitration or subject to the individual’s, group’s, denomination’s or church’s “private interpretation”. (II Peter 1:20) Baptist believe you do not have to be a Baptist in order to be saved and have eternal life, but a person must believe the Gospel as revealed in the New Testament. (I Corinthians 15:1-4) Further, if a person is truly saved and strictly follows the principles of the New Testament he will in a true sense be a Baptist whether he uses the name or not. Baptist also believe the Bible interprets itself, and that Christ is the only head of the church.

Fundamental Baptists are strict in interpreting the Bible in a “literal” sense. In other words, when the Bible speaks, the words have a literal meaning and that it the meaning God intended. They reject the efforts of the many who “spiritually” interpret the Scriptures, placing hidden or specially revealed meanings to the words of the Bible. Further, they reject so-called “scriptures” of modern day so called prophets. They believe that when the Book of Revelation was completed by the Apostle John about 90-95 AD, the Word of God was complete. It is believed that God meant what he said in Revelation 22:18, the Scriptures were not to added to or taken from. (See also Gal. 1:6-10, 1 Tim. 6:30, Titus 1:9-11, II Tim. 4:1-5, 1 Cor. 13:8-10)

Ask these five questions of any church, and if they can answer all five in truth with a yes, then you will have a true Baptist church. All others miss-use the name.

THE FIVE BAPTIST DISTINCTIVES

  1. WE ACCEPT ONLY THE NEW TESTAMENT AS OUR AUTHORITY IN ALL MATTERS OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.This means that we do not accept any authority except the New Testament Scriptures. Christ is head of the Church, and it is His bride. We believe the Word of God, the Bible is complete and it solely, “. . . Is given of by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God many be perfect, thoroughly furnished (equipped) unto all good works.” (II Timothy 3:16-17)We reject that God is giving supposed “new” Revelation, believing that God forbids any adding to or taking away of the canon of Scriptures. (Rev. 22:18-19) We do not accept any authority over the New Testament Church, but Christ Himself, including any hierarchy to include popes, modern day prophets, or councils of churches.
  2. WE BELIEVE THE CHURCH IS TO BE MADE UP OF SAVED BAPTIZED BELIEVERS.
    Baptist reject the baptism of infants flatly! The church is made up of Baptized believers only. (Acts 2:41-42) An infant is not capable of believing, and is protected by the Grace of God until the age of accountability. Further, only those who have believed and trusted in Jesus Christ as their Savior is a member of the body of Christ. Only the saved who have publicly professed salvation can be a member of a local New Testament church.
  3. WE BELIEVE IN STRICT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Jesus said to “”render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” Further the Scripture says “what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion that light with darkness?” No power on earth is higher than God’s Word, and the church should not be in any way yoked with the state, or controlled by it. We support the rightly appointed authority of government over us and pray for them that we live our lives in peace.
  4. WE BELIEVE IN THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE BELIEVER. The Scripture teaches that every believer can without the aid of priests or churchmen go, “boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace in the time of need”. (Hebrews 4:16) The Scripture states further in Hebrews 10:19, “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.” The believer does not needed a priest or a church to intercede on their behalf to God. The believer can boldly, by the fact of being washed in the blood of Christ, instantly be in contact with God by simple prayer, and further can bring his petitions or requests for forgiveness of sins directly to God himself. (1 John 1:19) No church has the authority to forgive sins or grant intercession to God.
  5. WE BELIEVE IN THE AUTONOMY OF THE LOCAL CHURCH. Simply stated the Scriptures gives no higher authority than the local congregation of born again, baptized believers. We believe the local church is to be governed by the Word of God, and the local church does not need, or does the Scripture teach that the local body rests under the authority of any earthy group. It is a group unto itself, under the authority of God, and solely responsible unto Him for its conduct, direction and affairs. Jesus in Revelation 2:6,15, stated that He “hated” the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes. This group of heretics in the early church with other doctrinal errors promoted a clerical hierarchy in the church.

Concluding Comments:

A church which cannot answer yes to all of these questions cannot historically call itself a Baptist church. These are the distinctives which separate Baptists from all Protestants, any organized church or “Christian” cult.

A person can rightly take pride in truthfully bearing the name Baptist. Many men have suffered and given their fortunes and their lives to hold the name in truth. It stands for devotion and a strict obedience to God and his commandments. It holds high the saving Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, as revealed in the New Testament and an unwavering commitment to carrying out the Great Commission, that is, to teach everywhere the truth of God’s Word.

The validity of a church as being a true Biblical New Testament church does not rest in it ability to show an unbroken line of succession from the time of Christ. In fact, no church on earth can make that claim. Even the Roman Catholic Church which boasts of his unbroken history cannot prove an unbroken line of churches earlier than the Third Century, and what Catholicism teaches today in no way resembles what the New Testament teaches or what the early churches believed and practiced.

We must agree with John Smyth, the true New Testament church is founded on its belief and practice of the Scriptures, and not on any outward succession of a visible or invisible organization. In this sense, any church which founds itself strictly on the New Testament teachings, is a true and Biblical church, even if it existed in time, only yesterday. It is not the name or the organization that makes a Biblical church, but its practice of the faith as revealed in the New Testament.

It is the Word of God, the Bible, that makes up what is a real and true church! The Bible and only the Bible reveals to men how to have their sins forgiven and have everlasting life and heaven. That is what saved believers have always believed, because that is what the New Testament which is God’s Word to man says.

The Baptist bases his authority solely on the Bible itself. They do not accept that authority was given to any particular man, pope, prophet, group or church on earth to be the means of the salvation of men. God has not entrusted that authority to impart salvation to any man or church. God alone has that authority and He in the person of the Holy Spirit brings conviction and salvation to those who in simple faith believe.

A church that is a biblical one, patterns its self-after the example in the New Testament. It is one made up of baptized believers organized in a local congregation for fellowship, teaching and evangelism. All systems of hierarchy set up by man over the authority of the local church has lead to doctrinal errors and corruption without exception and God has not party with them.

Bibliography

  • 1. A History of the Baptists, John T. Christian, Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.
  • 2. A History of the Baptists, by Robert G. Torbet, Valley Forge Press, 1987.
  • 3. The Baptist Heritage, Four Centuries of Baptist Witness, H. Loen McBeth, Broadman Press, 1987.
  • 4. A Source Book for Baptist Heritage,H. Loen McBeth, Broadman Press, 1990.
  • 5. The Baptist Heritage, by J. M. Holliday, Bogard Press.
  • 6. The Baptist March in History, by Robert A. Baker, Convention Press
  • 7. Christianity Through the Centuries, Earle E. Cairns, Zondervan Press
  • 8. Documents of the Christian Church, Henry Bettenson, Oxford University Press
  • 9. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Marie Gentert King, Editor, Spire Books
  • 10. A Manual of Church History, by Albert Newman, Vol. I and II. , The American Baptist Publication Society.
  • 11. Miller’s Church History, by Andrew Miller, Zondervan Publishing House
  • 12. A Short History of the Baptists, by Henry Vedder, Judson Press
  • 13. A Short History of Western Civilization, by John B. Harrison and Richard E. Sullivan, Michigan State University.
  • 14. The Trail of Blood , J. M. Carroll, Ashland Avenue Baptist Church

© Cooper P. Abrams, III ALL RIGHTS RESERVED: This publication has been reprinted with permission from the author. http://www.bible-truth.org/fundbapt.htm