Independent Baptist churches (also calledIndependent Fundamental Baptists orIFB) are Christian congregations that generally hold tofundamentalist or conservative views ofevangelical Christianity andBaptist beliefs, such asbeliever's baptism, individualsoul liberty, and thepriesthood of all believers.
The term "independent" refers to the doctrinal position of church autonomy and a refusal to join any affiliatedBaptist denominations or non-Baptist association, though they usually maintain some sort of fellowship with like-minded churches. As fundamentalists, these churches are strongly opposed to theecumenical movement.
Around 3% of theUnited States adult population belongs to the IFB movement, half of whom live in theSouthern United States.[1]
The modern IFB movement began in the early 20th century among localBaptist congregations whose members were concerned about the advancement ofmodernism ortheological liberalism into national Baptist denominations in the U.S.[2][3] In response to the concerns, some local Baptist churches separated from their former denominations and re-established their congregations as independent churches. In other cases, the more conservative members of existing churches withdrew from their local congregations and established new IFB churches.[4] However, earlier churches such as theMetropolitan Tabernacle led byCharles Spurgeon have been also associated with IFBs, as they separated from theBritish Baptist Union to become a self standing church due to holding more conservative beliefs than the Union.[5][6]
.jpg)
TheWorld Baptist Fellowship (originally the Premillennial Missionary Baptist Fellowship) is an IFB organization founded byJ. Frank Norris (1877–1952) inFort Worth, Texas, in 1933 based on the idea of a fellowship consisting of independent,premillennial Baptist churches. This was done to combat what he saw as the "modernist" influences within theSouthern Baptist Convention. However, afterJohn Birch, a graduate of hisseminary, was shot byChinese Communists, he began very strongly to preach againstcommunist influences in the U.S., and later urgedU.S. PresidentHarry Truman to recognize theState of Israel. Later however, major divisions were created within his organization in 1950, leading to a rival group of IFBs led byBeauchamp Vick inSpringfield, Missouri.[7]
Other IFB organizations that were founded include theGeneral Association of Regular Baptist Churches in 1932 (became independent in 1934), which separated from theNorthern Baptist Convention; theBaptist Bible Fellowship International in 1950; theSouthwide Baptist Fellowship in 1956; theFundamental Baptist Fellowship International in 1967; theIndependent Baptist Fellowship International in 1984; and theIndependent Baptist Fellowship of North America in 1990. Various independent Baptist Bible colleges were also founded.[8][9][10][11] Such organizations were also born outside the U.S., notably theAssociation of Fundamental Baptist Churches in the Philippines.[12]
In 1934, the major IFB newspaperThe Sword of the Lord was funded byJohn R. Rice, who edited the publication until his death on December 29, 1980. At first, it was simply the four-page paper of Fundamentalist (later, Galilean) Baptist Church of Dallas, where Rice was thepastor. The paper was handed out on the street, and Rice's daughters and other Sunday school children delivered it door-to-door.[13] The chief editor of newspaper after Rice's death becameCurtis Hutson,[14] which has been highly controversial among IFB, as he held to aFree Grace view of salvation, believing that repentance is simply a synonym for belief in Christ. Some IFBs believe that Hutson changed the original stances of the newspaper held by Rice, while the current chief editorShelton Smith argued that Rice did not disagree with the soteriological views of Hutson.[15][16]
In 1959,Jack Hyles became the pastor ofFirst Baptist Church of Hammond, which became the largest IFB church of the 20th century. When he arrived, the church had a membership of about seven hundred, many from affluent backgrounds. About a third of the members left the church after hearing Hyles' preaching style, which was very different from that to which they had been accustomed. Hyles then led the church to its status as an IFB church, freeing it from its ties with theAmerican Baptists. Hyles started his bus ministry and soon shepherded the church from a congregation of several hundred to more than 20,000. In the early 1990s, a national survey ranked First Baptist Church of Hammond as the largest church in the nation, by average weekly attendance figures.[17][18]
Within the 21st century, some IFBs voices have noticed a shift within some younger IFBs, particularly in their approach toseparatism and their approach totheology.[19]Paul Chappell notes thatMillennial IFBs tend to emphasize theological knowledge and avoid the more rigid forms of the doctrine of separation.[20] Although at the same time, the very radicalNew Independent Fundamental Baptist (New IFB) movement, founded bySteven Anderson, emerged out of the IFB movement and gained prominence online. However, mainstream IFB leaders have criticized the New IFB for its doctrinal positions, many of which are rejected by the broader IFB community today.[21]
Denominational beliefs are strictlyBaptist. AsChristian fundamentalists, they believe in theinspiration andinerrancy of the Bible, and great emphasis is also placed on aliteral-historical interpretation of Scripture. Other common beliefs includeseparation of church and state,young Earth creationism (YEC),cessationism, anddispensationalism.[22][23][24] In general, IFBs are opposed totheological liberalism,ecumenism,Roman Catholicism, theCharismatic movement, theordination of women pastors,homosexuality, andevolution.[25][26]
AsChristian fundamentalists, IFBs are opposed both toliberal Christianity andneo-evangelicalism (which is particularly associated withBilly Graham). IFBs believe that neo-evangelicalism errs by failing to practice separation sufficiently, rejecting its perceivedecumenical attitudes in some modern evangelical circles.[27]
Many IFB churches adhere to only using theKing James Version of the Bible (KJV), a position known as "King James Onlyism."[28][29] David Cloud, an IFB author, drawing on the arguments of textual scholar and theologianEdward Hills, asserts that the KJV should not be viewed simply as a translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts. Instead, he regards it as an independent edition of theTextus Receptus itself, rendered in English rather than Greek, and providentially preserved as the purest form of theTextus Receptus.[30] The King James Only position was also advocated by notable IFB pastors such as Hyles andLester Roloff, who maintained that the King James Bible is the perfectly preserved the Word of God in English.[31][32][33] Similarly,Jack Chick, who was best known for his comictracts, also advocated a King James Only position.[34] A more extreme form of King James Onlyism was developed byPeter Ruckman, who argued that the KJV constitutes "new revelation" or "advanced revelation" and is superior to the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.[35] However, some IFBs like Rice, Hutson,Lee Roberson,R. L. Hymers Jr., and others took a more moderate position in arguing that although the King James Bible is preferable to most modern translations because of its manuscript tradition, it is not divinely inspired.[36][37]
IFBs who support newer translations of the Bible acknowledge that there are varying opinions on textual matters. However, they believe that the fundamental concern is what the translators of the KJV advocated for: that the average person should have access to the Bible in a language they can understand.[37][38][39][40][41]
Among IFB institutions which rejects King James Onlyism isDetroit Baptist Theological Seminary. The institution treats only the original manuscripts of the Bible as theinerrant Word of God,[42] a position that places it in opposition to the King James Only movement, which asserts that the original manuscripts no longer exist due to their being thousands of years old.[43] King James Onlyists have criticized DBTS (together withBob Jones University and other institutions, includingCentral Baptist Theological Seminary) for playing an influential role in convincing some IFB groups to adopt modern Bible translations.[44][45][46][47]
IFBs overwhelmingly believe insalvation by gracethrough faith alone andeternal security, but they may differ slightly from each other on other positions. Some align withFree Grace theology, such as Hyles,[48] Hutson,[49]Ernest Pickering,[50] Smith,[51] and Ruckman.[52] Others, including Hymers, Jr.,[53] and Cloud,[54] believe true repentance is abandoning sins and that salvation changes how a person lives, however, they reject requiring a lost sinner to make Jesus Christ "Lord" of their entire life. There are also some IFBs who espouseLordship salvation and a few may even embrace moderateCalvinistic views.[55] IFBs often emphasize the distinction between law and gospel, a concept famously illustrated in Roloff's sermon "Dr. Law and Dr. Grace." In this sermon, Roloff described the law as revealing humanity's sins and exposing their inability to attain righteousness through their own works. This understanding, he explained, serves to guide individuals toward grace, where they can find forgiveness and redemption.[56]
Most IFBs strongly believe that the literal shedding of blood on the cross was a central part of Christ's atoning work, rejecting the view that the Biblical references to blood are intended as metaphors for death and instead emphasize the literal and physical aspect. Many also teach that after his resurrection,Jesus presented his blood on the heavenly mercy seat, often considering the literal blood of Christ as the object of faith for salvation in the New Testament.[57][58][59][60] A few such as Hymers, Jr., have stated that when preaching the gospel, one needs to include both the death of Jesus and the blood of Jesus.[61] This position is in direct contrast to the position mostly associated withRobert Thieme, who rejected the bleeding of Christ as a part of the propitiation, andJohn F. MacArthur has also stated similar views.[58]: 261 IFBs such as Hymers, Jr., have emphasized that due to theunity of the Person of Christ in His two natures, the blood of Jesus can also be called the blood of God.[62]
Some IFBs adhere to theSinner's Prayer, which is a prayer of confession to God by an unbeliever who has the desire to be saved, and they see reciting such a prayer as the moment defining one's salvation. However, others such as Cloud have criticized the sinner's prayer as leading to inauthentic conversions and calling it "quick prayerism."[63] The claim that prayer is necessary to be saved was also critiqued by Hyles in a sermon entitled "Fundamentalist Heresy."[64]
IFBs tend to reject atonement theories such as thegovernmental theory and themoral influence theory, but instead believe thatJesus' substitutionary bloody death paid the penalty of sin.[58]: 254-261
IFBs usually believe that members of a church should be separate from worldliness or "the world" and not have association with those who are "of the world" (unbelievers),[65] however, different IFBs vary in what to them constitutes separation in specific areas.[66]
Additionally, there is a distinction between first and second degree separation. IFBs want to live in a way that is distinct from the typical lifestyle of the world (first degree). Some would claim that not only should one separate from the world, but also from those Christians who will not separate themselves from the world (second degree), and believe that Christians who are tied up with the things of "the world" are themselves guilty of apostasy for their failure to adequately separate. The more rigid second degree separation was opposed by Rice and Hutson, however it was affirmed by Hyles.[67][68][69][70] Among IFBs, Chappell has also warned of being "hyper-separated," arguing that separation and collaboration needs to be taken with a balance.[71]
A few IFBs believe in the more rigid so-called "third degree separation," which is the belief that one needs to separate from fellow IFBs who do not practice secondary separation.[72]
Many IFBs adhere to some form of "Baptist successionism" (or Baptist perpetuity), the belief that Baptists trace their origins through a lineage of Christians dating back to the Apostles with medieval groups cited as pre-Reformation representatives of Baptist principles.[58] Thus, as a consequence IFBs tend to view themselves as distinct fromProtestantism.[73]
Some proponents of Baptist successionism take this further by embracingLandmarkism or "Baptist bride theology," the view that only Baptist churches constitute the body or bride of Christ and that only Baptists will beraptured and partake in the marriage supper of the Lamb. They also claim that the Baptist Church began withJohn the Baptist orJesus himself. However, this perspective is not universally accepted within the IFB movement and has been criticized for denying theuniversal body of Christ comprising all true believers.[74][75][76]
IFBs reject the ordination of women pastors anddeacons in a church according to theApostle Paul's writings in1 Timothy 2,Titus, and1 Corinthians 14.[77]
Many IFBs believe that according to 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6-7 a pastor cannot bedivorced, however, some reject this interpretation.[78] Ruckman argued that being "blameless" has nothing to do with divorce because he believed that a pastor can be remarried to one wife and that Paul is mainly addressingpolygamy in those passages.[79]
Baptist churches that adhere to fundamentalism often call themselves "Independent Baptist Church," "Bible Baptist Church," or "Fundamental Baptist Church" to demonstrate their membership in the movement.[80][81]
Most IFB churches exclusively use traditional worship during their services, however, there are some that have a mixture oftraditional andcontemporary worship styles. Many IFBs such as Hyles, Chick, Chappell, Cloud, Pickering, and Smith have criticized and rejected the use ofcontemporary Christian music (CCM).[82][83][84] Such leaders argue that styles such asrock andpop music are overly emotional, entertainment-focused, and man-centered, making them unsuitable for use in services. According to them, biblical principles should guide Christians to usehymns rather than CCM, which they feel lacks the reverence and theological depth appropriate for worship.[85]
IFBs hold that the Bible forbids partaking ofalcohol altogether and argue that some alleged alcoholic drinks in the Bible are only medicinal uses of alcohol. They also argue that wine in the Bible can also refer to non-alcoholic beverages such as unfermented grape juice, and for this reason the context must determine which meaning is required. In passages where beverages are viewed negatively, IFBs understand them to mean fermented wine, and where they are viewed positively, they understand them to mean unfermented wine.[86][87] According to this view, they believe that the wine in theLast Supper could not have been fermented, because they believe that the fermentation of wine is similar to the fermentation of bread through yeast, which they view as a symbol of sin. Thus, IFBs have argued that such wine cannot symbolize the blood of Christ.[88]: 688 [89]
Most IFBs adhere to apre-Tribulation view of theRapture,[90][91] although a minority subscribe tomid-Tribulation orpost-Tribulation interpretations.[92][93] The movement encompasses a range of theological and ideological perspectives, with notable variation on issues such asCalvinism,[94] expressions ofpatriotism,[95][96] belief in certainconspiracy theories, dispensational salvation,[97][98][99] interpretations of biblical accounts involvinggiants, and details on the relationships between the Persons of theTrinity, such as theclassical Trinitarian doctrine of theeternal generation of the Son,[58][100] among other views.
Regarding creation, IFBs typically align with either YEC[101] orgap creationism, a form ofold Earth creationism that accommodates an ancient universe while maintaining a literal reading of Genesis.[102][103][104] While the majority rejectmodern flat Earth beliefs,[105][106][107] a very small subset affirmsgeocentric creationism that retains a spherical Earth but places it at the center of the cosmos.[108][109][110][111]
In terms ofChristology, IFBs tend to upholdorthodox theological positions and affirm the historic condemnations of heresies such asmonophysitism,Nestorianism,Apollinarianism, andmonothelitism.[112] Nevertheless, a few within the movement have questioned whether monothelitism should be classified as heretical.[88]: 238
Concerning prior baptisms, IFBs are generally divided into two main groups: Open Baptists and Closed Baptists. Open Baptists accept baptisms performed by any Christian group, provided the baptism was conducted viaimmersion in theTrinitarian formula and administered to a professing believer. In contrast, Closed Baptists recognize only baptisms conducted within Baptist churches as valid. While the open view is more widespread in modern times, Landmarkists continue to reject non-Baptist baptisms as illegitimate, even if done by immersion.[58]: 667-675
Pickering voiced concern over the trend among some Baptists to abandon their denominational identity in favor of anon-denominational label. Although he acknowledged that many sincere Christians exist outside Baptist circles and personally rejected Landmarkist theology, Pickering warned that discarding the Baptist name often indicates a drift away from core Baptist convictions. He argued that such moves undermine unity among Baptist, fundamentalist, and separatist churches and open the door to ecumenical compromises. Pickering urged Baptists to preserve their distinct identity in order to maintain their theological and ecclesiastical integrity.[113]
IFBs are highly opposed to the doctrines and the movement of Thieme, and have called for the necessity of separation from Thieme's teaching, particularly due to his teachings on issues such as the atonement which IFBs view as major issues.[114]
IFBs such as Cloud have been highly critical of the New IFB movement, viewing it asheretical. Cloud has argued that their views such as that Jesus paid for sins by burning in Hell and that homosexuals cannot be saved are unbiblical. Addiotnally, Cloud has associated theirimprecatory prayers for people such asObama to becultic.[115]
Many influential IFBs originally separated from theSouthern Baptist Convention (SBC), especially due to different convictions on the topic of separation, Bible versions, and ecclesiology. Many in the IFB movement have been critical of the more centralized governance of the SBC, instead preferring fully independent church structure. Particularly differentiating IFBs today from the Southern Baptists is the distinction between fundamentalism and neo-evangelicalism, as although both espouse conservative views, they differ on the topic of separation.[116][117] However, some IFBs still wish to maintain close ties to the SBC.[118]
IFBs are sometimes skeptical of things such astelevision andprofessional sports, believing that modern entertainment is often too "worldly." Nevertheless, some IFBs are more lenient on entertainment, which has drawn criticism from other IFB writers such as Cloud, who believes that they have fallen into allowing worldliness in the name of joy.[119][120]
IFBs believeeuthanasia to be sinful, believing it to contradict the Second Commandment. They believe that euthanasia takes away opportunities from people to be saved by believing in theblood of Christ or earn rewards, which God has given them.[121]
IFBs believe that homosexuality is sinful. They believe that marriage is only biblically allowed between one man and woman, that sexual relations outside marriage are sinful, and often believe that a person's sexual orientation can be changed.[122] However, they believe that homosexuals can be saved still by the atonement of Jesus Christ.[123] In distinction, the New IFB movement differs from this view, believing that homosexuals can never be saved and should be subject tocapital punishment.[124][125]
In 2018, an investigation by theFort Worth Star-Telegram identified 412 abuse allegations in 187 IFB churches and institutions across the U.S. andCanada, with some cases reaching as far back as the 1970s.[126][127] In November 2023,Investigation Discovery releasedLet Us Prey: A Ministry of Scandals, a four-part documentary highlighting sexual abuse and cover up within the IFB movement.[128]
IFB authors have responded to sexual abuse scandals in various ways. Smith has argued that while IFBs need to take allegations seriously, he has still expressed skepticism on the cases of cover up happening in large scale within the IFB movement.[129] Some IFB such as Cloud have instead reacted to these allegations by arguing that they are only common in certain segments of the IFB movement. Cloud in response stated that other IFBs already attempted to deal with these cases in the 1980s and 1990s.[130] To this, the IFB author Chappell also made a statement that IFBs need to have an increased compassion for those who have been victims of abuse, and critiqued those IFB who did not want to openly discuss the issue, although he rejected the claim that those cases of abuse characterize a majority of the movement.[131]
But if I tell them about Christ's Blood, it satisfies many of them, and they trust Jesus and are saved. That is why we must preach both elements in the Lord's Supper – the death of Christ's body – and the Blood of Christ.
When he says that "God…has no body and hence no blood" he seems to question Paul's belief in the deity of Christ. I for one think it is MacArthur who is wrong, not the Apostle Paul! MacArthur's statement can lead to a very serious error, known as Nestorianism, which arose in the fifth century. Protestants and Baptists (like Strong) have always held this to be the Biblical position, agreeing with Chalcedon rather than the Nestorian heresy. To put it simply, Jesus was fully God and fully man in the hypostatical union, and we must not "divide the person." MacArthur's statement can lead to a denial of this historical Bible doctrine. It is Emmanuel's Blood, the Blood of God with us, alone that can cleanse you from sin and "purchase" you from condemnation and Hell, for all time and for all eternity! Come to Christ! Be washed clean from sin by the Blood of God the Son, fully man and fully God! No other blood can cleanse you!
Paul is saying that a pastor cannot be guilty ofpolygamy. There is no reference to anybody who has Scriptural grounds for divorce (see notes on Mark 10:11; 1 Cor. 7:15), as the Lord Himself had (see note on Hos. 2:2).
1. Can Sodomites Be Saved?
Next God gives us a roll call of the attributes of the Sodomite (homosexual):
"Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." – Romans 1:29–32
God defines the word "reprobate", used in Romans 1:28 in regard to homosexuals, the first time it is ever mentioned in the Bible. The first reference to the word "reprobate" in the Bible is Jeremiah 6:30, "Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the LORD hath rejected them." God has already rejected the sodomites. He gave them over to become the filthy animals they are. Although God initially loved them ("God so loved the world") and wanted them to be saved and died on the cross for them, they refused to be saved or even acknowledge God, and God finally gave them up.
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. – Jude 7
The word "queer" is a very Biblical description of the homosexual since here God refers to them as "strange." God did not send a preacher or soul-winner to Sodom, he sent two angels to examine the situation and to remove Lot from the city. His only solution to the problem of homosexuality was to pour out literal Hellfire and destroy the city as an example of what he thinks about sodomy.
I believe that the GOVERNMENT should put them to death as the Bible lays out in Leviticus 20:13. We as Christians should NOT accept homosexuals. Am I going to harm homosexuals? NO. Should they be put to death by the legitimate authorities (i.e. our government). YES
That's a good word. What happens is when a person becomes reprobate, according to the Bible, when a person is rejected by God after repeatedly refusing God, hating God, it's like God just removes that restraint or removes that constraint that says, "Hey. These are gross things. These are weird things. These are things that you just don't do." It's like he just removes that and then they just do whatever. That's one of the things that they do is men with men. But they do other things. I mean, I don't want to go into it all tonight, but Leviticus 18 is chalked full of things that they do that are even worse. Things with animals ... It goes down the list in Leviticus 18. I'm not even going to go into it tonight. This sermon's already nasty enough without having to go verse by verse through Leviticus 18. I don't think I can handle that one tonight.