/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved.

I think they're officially the 40,000th denomination.

It's a movement of conservative baptist churches who do not have any higher affiliation. The name is sort of misleading, because the norm in baptist ecclesiology is the autonomy of the local church. It would not be wrong to describe your local Southern Baptist church as "independent, fundamental".

The term comes from the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the 20th century. They hold historic baptist distinctives and emphasize tradition in the church service more than the average baptist church (KJV, hymn singing etc)

Steven Anderson and colleagues call themselves "new IFB"

>>734464

>local Southern Baptist church as "independent, fundamental"

Being part of the southern baptist convention means that they are explicitly NOT independent. Don't be fooled into thinking there's no beliefs or doctrines you can hold contrary to the SBC and still be a member. There is a hierarchy.

>>734465

>Being part of the southern baptist convention means that they are explicitly NOT independent

The purpose of the convention is to share resources, especially for missions. It's called the cooperative program. Churches are not governed in any way by the SBC.

You do have to agree with the confessional document, the BFM to participate.

"Independent" and "autonomous" are church polity terms

>>734471

So they keep tabs on eachother then? Like the Chinese government.

>>734481

what?

>>734486

Do they spy on eachother to make sure no one drifts away too much in their belief and practice?

>>734487

You mean like does the convention audit churches?

I'm not sure what the process is for removing a church from affiliation

>>734489

I guess, and also visits or checkups by clergy from other churches.

The IFB claim that they are following the bible the way it was followed on Day 1.

Is there any evidence to support this? I always hear Catholics and Orthodox calling baptists "protestants" and imply that Catholicism or Orthodox came first.

>>734658

>The IFB claim that they are following the bible the way it was followed on Day 1.

What day is that ? The Church existed for almost 300 years before the bible was canonized and it certainly wasn't canonized by people who believed in independent fundamentalist baptism.

>>734487

Nope. The moment a pastor starts preaching about "we need to be more inclusive to faggots" it's a good sign to start looking for a new one.

>>734678

This pisses me off you do noone a favor by saying Cathars were true Christians let alone Christian anything.

>>734693

What does this have to do with the cathars?

>>734702

Did you even read your picture… or how about this "Carroll claims a descent by modern Baptists from such earlier groups as the Waldensians, the CATHARI, the Paulicians, and the Donatists. "

emp added

>>734703

I'm going to admit that I'm not very familiar with various heretical groups by name, but it looks like the "cathari" identified with Baptist landmarkism by Carroll are in the 6th century column, not the 12th century cathars

>>734723

Also, donatists.

Donatists are SCHISMATICS that separated because the catorthodox SACRAMENTS were invalid, in their view.

Which is an ecclesiology that is extremely foreign to baptists.

>>734731

Great point, I think you're right

>>734723

The Novatianists were identified as καθαροι/katharoi/purists, similarly to the Cathars. However, Novatian's followers were essentially even more extremist Donatists that believed a Lapsi (one who had renounced the faith and/or sacrificed to the Roman Pantheon) should be permanently barred from Communion and was forever condemned.

Doesn't sound like Cathars, or Baptists for that matter.

However, they're already listed earlier in the graph, so maybe the author is referring to a different 'Cathari'.

The closest comparison to Cathars in Late Antiquity would be, perhaps, Arians or Manicheans. Arianism in Southern France can be sourced to the Visigoths, and Manicheans either spread there independently or got deported there by the Romans. As far as I'm aware, there was no identification with the term 'Cathari' in the region until, well, the Cathars some centuries later. Maybe it's just a clerical heh error, as the actual Cathars are nowhere to be found (even though the chart includes other Gnostic groups without a care for the consequences).

>>734744

(same poster)

My bad, it does list the Cathars under Albigenses. I forgot that was one of the names for them.