Refuting the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Sect


#1

Hi everyone. How would a person go about defeating the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist sect? What are some key questions that I could ask members of this sect to show them the error of their ways? :confused:

I think that one of the first things that should be tackled is their belief in KJV Onlyism. How would you go about tackling this belief? :confused:


#2

You can read my testimony for some points:
thetrailhome.blogspot.com/2008/02/trail-home.html

The KJV issue is the easiest to refute since the Bible was not written in English. Simple logic. But be aware that fundamentalists rely on emotion, not logic.


#3

Thank you JustaServant. I will remember your advice. :slight_smile:


#4

These people deny that Baptism appropriates the washing away of sins. I always attack Baptists here because Scripture is absolutely clear about the doctrine of baptismal regeneration and I like to see them squirm with embarrassment at their own contortions:
Acts 22:16 'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'
Acts 2:38 Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;
1 Peter 3:21 And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you
Mk16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved

The blood of Jesus is the meritorious cause of our salvation which we agree on. Be clear, that you are contrasting their sinner’s prayer with baptism.

Don’t be dragged off topic into debates about infant baptism, immersion or Mary. Make them answer the question first.

Furthermore, find out whether they hold to the Trail of Blood theory, i.e. that there was always a secret Baptist movement hidden throughout history. Contemporary Baptist scholars, that is men with doctorates, do not hold to this fantasy.


#5

I saw a IFB preacher almost implode because he couldn’t explain away that verse.
:smiley:


#6

I buried a Baptist with a PhD with these arguments. He concluded that the Catholic Church was ‘wrong on other points’ so they had to be wrong on baptism. Lame really.

If you want a good laugh check out what the Baptist’s AMPLIFIED BIBLE does to 1 Peter 3:21:

1Pe 3:21 And baptism, which is a figure [of their deliverance], does now also save you from inward questionings and fears], not by the removing of outward body filth [bathing], but by [providing you with] the answer of a good and clear conscience (inward cleanness and peace) before God because you are demonstrating what you believe to be yours] through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.


#7

You also might want to tackle the heresy of Dispensationalism, a system not created until the 19th century. It’s a complicated heresy that LOOKS scriptural, but in fact is a fairy tale with Bible verses forcibly fit into it.
IFBs are VERY anti-Catholic and VERY emotional when it comes to being challenged. Be prepared for an attack.
Pray the Rosary beforehand.


#8

Adding words to the Bible, exactly what they accuse Catholics of.


#9

Could you please explain further how I will be clear that I am contrasting their sinner’s prayer with baptism? I am not sure how to go about doing that. :o


#10

Well everyone, I have decided not to tackle the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist sect just yet. I think I’ll wait a while before I decide to tackle it.


#11

Thier ‘sinner’s prayer’ is found nowhere in scripture or in Church history up to the 20th century. They beilieve that the ‘sinner’s prayer’ is the way a ‘lost’ person connects mystically to God and is ‘saved’ (in a one time event).
Baptism is explicitly talked about in scripture as ‘washing away of sin’.
Also (stealing HailMary’s post::smiley: )

Protestants misunderstand Salvation as a "instance in time"
salvation is a 3-dimensional reality with past, present, and future componets:

PAST:
Titus 3:5

Quote:
he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

Eph. 2:5-8

Quote:
even when we were dead in our transgressions, brought us to life with Christ 5 (by grace you have been saved), raised us up with him, and seated us with him in the heavens in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;

PRESENT:
1 Cor. 1:8

Quote:
He will keep you firm to the end, irreproachable on the day of our Lord Jesus (Christ).

2 Cor. 2:15

Quote:
For we are the aroma of Christ for God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing,

FUTURE:
Rom. 5:9-10

Quote:
How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath. Indeed, if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, once reconciled, will we be saved by his life.

1 Cor. 3:12-15

Quote:
If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one’s work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.

“Salvation as crisis”, or instance in time" was never part of Church teaching untill the last 300 years (even early Protestants understood this).


#12

Oh okay. :slight_smile: Thank you very much JustaServant. :slight_smile:


#13

This might help too:

Fundamentalists love the designation “independent, fundamental Baptist”. The problem, first, is this:
They are not “independent (which to them means non-denominational)”.
The term “denomination” generally referred to Protestant churches for the sake of “denominating” themselves from other Protestant churches. “Independent, fundamental, Baptist” churches are a denomination because it is a name applied (“denominated”) to these churches. It has nothing to do with the form of church government. Each church is connected by a “Bible college” or a “camp”.
“Fundamental” refers to the “fundamentals” of the Christian faith. The problem is that they are rather choosy about what those “fundamentals” are, taking away fundamentals they disagree with (Sacraments, Eucharist), and adding (Rapture, Premillenialism), “fundamentals” that have never been a part of the Historic Christian faith.
Fundamentalists are “anti-creedal”, they will not acknowledge the historic creeds of the Church claiming: “The Bible is our creed”, which becomes very subjective. To claim “sola scriptura” presents problems because each person interprets that phrase, and the Bible, differently. There simply is no authority. Without any authority, many fundamentalists fall into the heresies of the past. For example, many fundamentalists have begun to deny the doctrine of original sin, a heresy the Church dealt with centuries ago. Once you deny the doctrine of original sin, other doctrines follow like dominoes, the Virgin birth, the impeccability and (eventually) the Deity of Christ. Many take a modalistic view of the Trinity, another ancient heresy. Some deny the need for repentance in regard to salvation. Without any doctrinal authority, “fundamentalism” become very “non-fundamentalist”. Many fundamentalist churches have a “doctrinal statement”. The problem comes from the “doctrines” within it that were never part of Historic Christianity.
Baptist?
Their claim to be Baptist is a problem as well. Baptists originated out of the Reformation. Fundamentalist claim never to have been part of the Reformation and state Baptists predate the Reformation, and in fact, finds its roots in the Early Church. This is accomplished through revisionist history with absolutely no historical foundation. The beginnings of this can be traced back to a 19th century in a book entitled: “A Concise History of Baptists" by G.H. Orchard.” In the 20th century, this was shortened in a booklet called “'The Trail of Blood” by J M Carroll.
Many Baptists to this day believe this is a historically accurate portrayal of history. Though rejected by historians, many Baptists understand this largely fabricated historical account to be the story of how Christ established the Baptist church (beginning with John the Baptist) and how it remained the one true church loyal to Christ for the past 2000 years. Dr. Carroll seeks to identify the Baptist church of today with nearly every medieval and early heretical group. Some of the ones he cites most often are the Donatists, Montanists, Paulicians, Albegensians, Waldenses, and Anabaptists. His claim is best refuted by simply examining who these heretics were and what they taught. In all cases it is a far cry from what modern Baptists believe.
If the “true Church” was an “underground” Church until the Reformation (which they claim not be a part of anyway), there is a problem with the very words of Christ. He said “the gates of hell shall not prevail against” the Church. Trail of Blood history turns Jesus into a liar.
In this, only one conclusion can be reached.
“Independent Fundamental Baptists” are neither independent, fundamental, nor Baptist.


#14

You have good ideas but I’m affraid your choice of words when explaining your battles may be a bit harsh… trust me I’m not perfect and I also like to be able to prove that someone may be wrong, but I think we always need to be aware of who we are fighting these battles for. They’re not for our own personal glory but to bring others out of darkness and into the light of the truth.

May God bless us and give us the wisdom we need to share his truth in a kind manner… Amen

SD


#15

You can’t, plain and simple


#16

Maybe not you but the ones that are willing to learn the truth can be taught… but it takes time to make them realize the negative things they’ve been taught about the CC are not true…

SD


#17

What do you actually mean here. Please elaborate. In what way are you planning to take 'em on?


#18

Why are you running around trying to “defeat” people anyway? That is what they do. Why not leave them alone unless they bother you?

Edwin


#19

Yes, you can…:slight_smile:

nannygirl, FORMER Independent Fundamentalist Baptist, NOW Catholic


#20

My guess is that the poster really means defeating their arguments- not them. When I became a Catholic, my Baptist friends became unglued and I was inundated with all sorts of anti-Catholic “information”. A lot of times THEY are the ones who are doing the “bothering”, so it is good to be prepared to give good answers to their proposals in a gentle, kind way. I used to be very opposed to Catholicism, so I know where they’re coming from.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.