• Home
  
  
• Origins of IFBs
  
  
• About Me
  
  
• Whats New?
  
  
• Articles by Topic
  
  
• IFB Church Directory
  
  
• Links
  
  
• Comments
  
  
• Email Me

A Hopeful Vision for Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches

by Larry Harriman

For sometime I have received emails from people all over the United States as well as other parts of the world as to what my vision is for the IFB church. What would be my ideal IFB church, if I were a Pastor what would my church look like? They have read many of the things that I believe need reforming but they have asked me to put it all together and paint a picture for them.

When we say "reformed" in many theological circles they will think of the reformed church of John Calvin. There are also Reformed Baptist Churches out there. What these churches have in common is their holding to the teachings of Soverign Grace theology, otherwise known as Calvinism. I do hold to the main principles of Soverign Grace theology, but I think many churches have misdefined and overemphazied some parts of it though.

I have yet to undertake a series on Calvinism on this site. This is because while I believe very similar to the typical Calvinist, I would define some things differently thus some people would not consider me a true Calvinist. If that is the case , then I plead guilty.

We must understand that the doctrinal explanations of John Calvin as well as Martin Luther in these areas are not inerrant, but they are man's attempt at understanding the deep things of God.

This area of Soverign Grace theology, affects the very heart of any local church. The pivotal point is whether we believe in unconditional election, or conditional election. All other issues fall under these and greatly affect how we structure our local churches.

The reformed IFB church I envision would be one that teaches that God chose us before we chose him. Too many IFB churches have that concept backwards. I was visited a local IFB church a while back for a Baptism. In this church the Pastor, who believes in conditional election, said that election is "God looking forward through time and seeing those who he could win and would choose him. These are the ones he elects." This is completely backwards from what the scriptures teach in this area:

Romans 9:10-18(NIV)
"10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad-- in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls-- she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." 14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory--

Romans chapter 9 and other passages like it clearly state that God chose us "not by works but by him who calls" and that God's election "...does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.". Yet in many IFB churches, people are told that their salvation is completely dependant on their own desire and effort. That God chose them only after they first chose him. Lets look at one other passage which completely strikes down this idea that man chooses God first and then God chooses man:

1 John 4:19
"We love him, because he first loved us."

According to John, we only love him because he first loved us. This completely and easily destroys the argument that God chose(and in essense loved) us because we first loved him.

If anyone wants to argue about this, let them argue with the Apostle Paul. He anticipated the reaction some people would have to God's soverignly creating some people as "objects of his wrath" and "prepared for destruction" and others as "objects of his mercy...prepared in advance for glory". His answer to these people is good enough for me - "who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

The reformed IFB church I envision would not only teach the soverignty of God it would also teach the total depravity of man. Many IFB churches teach that while man is sinful, he is not so completely wicked that he is incapable of choosing God on his own in his sinful,fallen state. But once again, this does not match with the teachings of the Word of God in this area:

Romans 8:7(NIV)
"7the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so."

Ephesians 2:4-5(NIV)
"4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions-- it is by grace you have been saved."

The reformed IFB church I envision would teach that God chose us before we chose him. That we were incapable of choosing him because "the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.". God "made us alive" while "we were dead in transgressions" - not after we believed. He had to regenerate us so we could believe.

The reformed IFB church I envision would refute hyper-calvinists. These are preachers and teachers who have taken the scriptural teaching of Soverign Grace to "logical conclusions" that God never makes in his Word. We have only to accept and teach what God says about his Soverignty, not to add to it.

Many churches of the past as well as today, have made what they consider to be a "logical conclusion" when it comes to evangelism and soverign grace. There logic is that since God chose who would be saved and he does the saving and regenerating, then we don't need to evangelize. Once again this does not match up with the Word of God:

Romans 10:14-15(NIV)
"14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!""

Mattew 28:18-20(NIV)
"18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Acts 1:8(NIV)
8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

Christ commanded the disciples to go and preach the Gospel and make disciples. Many hyper-calvinist teachers have taught that the great commision was only for the disciples and that it was not for Christians until he returns. The problem with this is that Christ said "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.". Why would he make such a reference to the rest of history until he returned, if this was only temporary? He was saying he would be with all Christians throughout history until he returned. He would empower each of us to spread his Word and to make disciples.

Also if the great commision was only for his Apostles, then why did Paul write "...And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?" many years after Christ died and to those who were not Apostles?

So why should we witness to our friends and neighbors and why should we as local churches send out missionaries? The simplist answer is because Christ and his Apostles commanded us to. Now just because they commanded us to send out missionaries and evangelize, this does not negate the teaching of God's soverignty in election. God chooses, yet he uses men to acomplish he purposes, this is the clear teaching of the scriptures.

The reformed IFB church I envision would also refute those hyper-electionists that teach belief is not necessary for salvation. There are some, especially among Primitive Baptists, who teach belief is not necessary for salvation. They say they are not Calvinist because they flatly reject some of the points of Calvinism. That is why it is more accurate to call them "hyper-electionists".

In essense they teach that we are saved by election, as opposed to the scriptural teaching that we are elected to be saved by believing on the Son of God and taking him as our God and Savior. They teach that there are two kinds of salvation. The first kind is our "eternal salvation". This they say, is not dependent on our faith and trust in Christ, but we are simply eternally saved by election.

The second type of salvation they teach is called "timely salvation". This is where someone who is elect, gets "timely knowledge" of their "eternal salvation". For this salvation the individual must believe, but it in no way affects their eternal salvation. Well I will just say that the Scriptures plainly condemn this teaching that we are not required to believe and that we are saved before we believe:

Ephesians 1:11-14(NIV)
"11In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory."

This is one of the most powerful and descriptive passages in all the New Testament as to how,when and for how long we are saved. Paul reaffirms his earlier teachings on election in verse 11 clearly stating that we were "chosen" and "predestined" not according to our choosing God first, but "in conformity with the purpose of his will". He then tells us contrary to some hyper-calvinist teachers, that we "were included in Christ" when we "heard the word of truth" and then "believed". Finally he somes it up with the doctrine of eternal security and states that "Having believed" we were indwelled with the Holy Spirit, "who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance".

This verse is exciting for those of us who take it at face value, but for hyper-calvinists and those who teach we can loose our salvation, it is terrifying. I have seen some real interesting interpretations of Paul's clear speech here over the years. I am glad I take and claim these powerful truths at face value.

There is one more brand of hyper-calvinism that I want to address. Many don't even realize that it is hyper-calvinism because so many Calvinist teachers have embraced this type of error over the years.

What I am talking about are the teachings of Lordship Salvation and Means of Salvation. I have already written some articles on these topics but I will give a short description of why I believe these are hyper-calvinist teachings. These hyper-calvinist teachers take the fifth point of Calvinism to an unbiblical conclusion. Let me just say at this point that I realize they could quote several Calvinist teachers of the past including Calvin himself who thought this way. But even if Calvin himself thought this way, it does not make it right.

They say that because God soverignly chooses us and regenerates us, that he also make all Christians to progress in relatively the same manner. They say that all true Christians will persevere in righteousness. In other words that all those who are truely elect will become more and more righteous. They will never become perfect until they are glorified, but they will get better and better. It is impossible for a truely elect person to "stall" or go backward for any great length of time in his walk with Christ. All true believers will exhibit a pattern of righteous living with only "moments" of failure.

The Scriptures however, plainly teach that there are some who will do little with their lives for Christ, and others who will give all they have their entire lives for Christ. Some will be great imitators of Christ, while others will not be.

Certainly God has given us the power to lead godly lives. But each of us uses the tools he gives us to differing degrees of success. Paul tells us that some Christians will do much for the Lord and others will be saved by the skin of their teeth. Look at what he writes in 1 Corinthians 3:

1 Corinthians 3:11-15(NIV)
"11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames."

So Paul tells us that the only true foundation for salvation is Jesus Christ. If we don't have that, all the good deeds and righteous living we do won't add up to anything in eternity and we will not be saved. But then he tells us that we can build on this foundation differently using different materials. Some people build with "gold, silver, costly stones" while others build with "wood, hay or straw".

The ones who build with "gold, silver, costly stones" are the ones who have lived righteous lives, and served Christ with their lives - good disciples. The other ones who build with "wood, hay or straw" are the Christians who do not serve Christ with their lives. Their deeds, since they were not done with a view of eternity, are "burned up". While these bad disciples will "suffer loss" of rewards, they will still "be saved".

So in conclusion on this issue of hyper Calvinism, reformed IFB churches would stand against these hyper-calvinist teachings. On one side, we must refute those who are hyper-electionists and do not teach we must believe on the Son of God for our eternal Salvation. On the other side of hyper-calvinism we must proclaim that salvation is the free gift of God. We cannot work for it and our works have no part in us keeping it. God gives us rewards for the works we do after salvation so that we will understand that our works have no part in our salvation. We must teach that being saved costs us nothing, but the attempt to be Christlike in this life could cost us everything, even our very lives.

The reformed IFB church I envision would refute "revivalism". "revivalism" teachings mainly find their origins in the teachings of a man name Charles Finney. In the early 1800's he was a former Presbyterian minister who was repulsed by much of the hyper-calvinistic teachings he was brought up with.

Instead of just refuting hyper-calvinism, he refuted all the doctrines of soverignty all together and even came to deny the doctrine of original sin. He came to believe that people were not be saved simply because of bad methods of evangelism, not because of their fallen sinful natures. He introduced what would later be called his "new methods". One of these later became known as the "altar call". He believed the altar call was person's first step of faith, and was virtually equivalent to baptism in importance to God.

He introduced the techniques we find very commonly in IFB churches of having people raise their hands and come forward to make "public decsions for Christ". His strategy was to use a combination of emotion and intellectual reason to bring people to a decision for Christ. His methods were later incorporated and further expanded by famous preachers like D.L.Moody, Billy Sunday and Billy Graham, while they were refuted by men like Charles Spurgeon.

Another common practice that Finney was one of the pioneers of was the yearly "Revival meetings" phenomonon we see commonly in IFB churches today. Before this time, revivals where thought of as a special act of God. God sent revivals that happened during the times of George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards that were spontaneous and unplanned. Finney and others like him thought they could orchastrate and artifically cause revivals if they just used the right "methods".

We see now today the results and evolution of Finney's new methods in our IFB churches today. Every Sunday IFB preachers across the world are proclaim things like "Come down this aisle and be saved, Christ is waiting down here to meet with you". Instead of telling them they can trust Christ as their savior in their pew or anywhere else. Oh, they might add that as foot note, but the best way to come to Christ in their view is to come running down the aisle in an emotional frenzy toward the Pastor.

I have also seen altar calls used by Pastors to manipulate their congregations. They will have 20 verses of "Just as I am" played until they see the results they think they have coming. I have seen parents bring their unsaved children down the aisle and the Pastor trying to force-feed the gospel down their throats. I do not believe that this is always on purpose, for some Pastors just do not realize what they are doing. Regardless though, it is wrong to do.

The reality is that altar calls are much more about emotional manipulation, then they are about Holy Spirit led change. I have seen in many churches people who crave the attention of the altar call. They come down sobbing each week about something and it is all for attention. I am not saying all those who come are like this. I believe their are many Christians who are genuinely deceived about the altar call and believe that a decision "will count more" and that it means more if they will come down to the front in front of the church. I pray that God will show my brethren who are deceived by this that their decision, whether to accept Christ as Savior or to repent of some sin, counts just as much in their pew as it does at the front of the church.

So how would the reformed IFB church I envision handle this? They would proclaim the Gospel from the pulpit and allow the Holy Spirit, not man made techniques, to draw those whom Christ has purposed to draw or change. They would offer prayer rooms for people to come in after the service and have any questions they may have answered. No show in the front would be necessary. This would allow those who have questions and concerns to have those concerns addressed, while keeping away the show makers. It would also take the focus off how many converts or reptentant sinners the preacher was able to produce with his preaching, and put the focus back on the inner working of the Holy Spirit.

But what about yearly Revival meetings? The IFB Church I envision may or may not have Bible conferences in which they have guest speakers come in and preach. Whether God would choose to send Revival to the church would all be according to his will. But there would be no man-made attempt to emotionally bring about revival. It would all be work the work of the Spirit of God. Bible conferences would not include emotional altar calls but would be the proclaimation and teaching of God's Word. The IFB church I envision would not judge other IFB churches that choose to have or not have these Bible Conferences as they are found nowhere in the New Testament.

The reformed IFB church I envision would refute the Catholic incorporation of the Mosaic Law in regards to tithing. They would teach as the Apostle Paul did in this area that "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."(II Corinthians 9:7)

The reformed IFB church I envision would not be an aggressive fund raising machine as I have seen is the case in so many IFB churches today. Instead they would operate within a realistic budget based on the free-will, uncompelled offerings they receive each month.

If they do not receive enough offerings to have a building, then they would meet in people's homes as the first churches did. If they did not receive enough offerings to pay their Pastor full time, the Pastor would do as the Apostle Paul did and "make tents" - or work a side job.

It is unfortunate that so many IFB churches today feel that the measure of how well their church is serving the Lord is primarily found in how many international missionaries they have sent out.

It is common for Pastors and members of various IFB churches to brag to one another about some distant country where they have sent missionaries. Why is this unfortunate you ask? Because while it is not wrong and it is a good thing to send out international missionaries our first mission is our local area, and many IFB churches have lost site of this fact.

Jesus Christ told his followers and us to be "...witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."(Acts 1:8) Does this mean we have to literally go over to Israel and go to these places? No it does not. What it means is that we should first evangelize our "Jerusalem", meaning our local community. Then after we have devoted primary resources to this and if other resources are still available, we should devote resources to "Judea and Samaria", or our state and country. Then after we have devote sufficient resources to evangelizing our own local community, state and country, then we should devote available resources to "the ends of the earth". Many IFB churches have gotten this backwards.

Let me give you an example of what I mean in this area. It is very common for a brand new start-up IFB church who cannot even afford to pay their Pastor full time to take on international missionaries. This is wrong, in that our churches should be supporting our local Pastor first, before we are contributing to the support of Pastors abroad.

The reformed IFB church I envision would first fully support its Pastor and local ministries, and then it would look abroad for other ministry opportunities.

The reformed IFB church I envision would not teach the traditions of men as the commands of God. This church would discourage judging fellow church members because they applied the scriptures differently on disputable matters. The church would teach and practice Romans chapter 14. It would encourage each of its members to come to their own standards for their families based on Scriptures.

While this church would preach against sin as clearly outlined in the scriptures, it would not impose or preach cultural or personal standards on the same line as the Scriptures.

In this church, the Pastor might share his opinions on certain disputable matters. Where he would be different than many IFB Pastors is in his drawing a clear distinction between his opinion on disputable issues and the clear commands of the Scriptures.

The IFB church I envision would want their congregation to understand the Word of God as its original receipients did more than 2000 years ago. The Bible was originally written in the common trade language of the Roman empire so that the common man could understand it. We should never loose site of this fact, and the IFB church I envision would not be afraid to used modern(common) translations to convey the Word of God.

I think Paul's Words in 1 Corinthians chapter 14 aptly address this issue:

"8Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me."
1 Corinthians 14:8-11(NIV)

I find it fascinating that so many KJV Only advocates will try and use verse 8 and say that if we have many translations than "the trumpet"(the Bible) will not be making a clear call. That is why we need to accept that the King James Version is God's final translation for the english people - at least according to their belief.

These same people dismiss Paul's other words in this same passage in regards to clarity of the Word of God. Paul says we must understand the Word that is spoken. Paul says if people don't understand the Word spoken it is like speaking into the air and the people become like foriegners not understanding.

It is interesting that the King James Translators themselves used this passage as a defense for their translation and for the continual translation of the Word of God into the common man's language. Many asked them why a new translation was necessary, after all the King James Translation was the 9th translation of the Bible made in English. Their reply to this was awsome:

"But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? as it is written, "Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shall be a Barbarian to me." [1 Cor 14] The Apostle excepteth no tongue; not Hebrew the ancientest, not Greek the most copious, not Latin the finest. Nature taught a natural man to confess, that all of us in those tongues which we do not understand, are plainly deaf; we may turn the deaf ear unto them...

Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered [Gen 29:10]. Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, "Read this, I pray thee," he was fain to make this answer, "I cannot, for it is sealed." [Isa 29:11]

While the King James Version was at the time of its original release in the common man's language, it is no longer today. In fact it ceased to be in the common man's language more than 200 years ago. While "Thees" and "Thous" may sound majestic, this does not speak in the common man's language anymore. We should keep God's Word in the common man's language, just as he gave it in the common greek trade language more than 2000 years ago. If this means we need a new translation every 100 years or so, or sooner, so be it.

The reformed IFB church I envision would not be afraid of new forms of music. In fact they would encourage new songs to be written and be peformed for the praise and glory of the Lord. While they would be causeous to avoid sensually performed music, they would not discourage innovation in worship. I find it interesting that the largest book in the Bible is a book devoted to Praise, a book of poems and songs to God the book of Psalms. Let us hear some wisdom from this book on how to praise God:

"Sing to him a new song; play skillfully, and shout for joy."
Psalm 33:3(NIV)

"He put a new song in my mouth, a hymn of praise to our God. Many will see and fear and put their trust in the LORD ."
Psalm 40:3(NIV)

"Sing to the LORD a new song; sing to the LORD, all the earth."
Psalm 96:1(NIV)

"Shout with joy to God, all the earth!"
Psalm 66:1

"Clap your hands, all you nations; shout to God with cries of joy."
Psalm 47:1(NIV)

"1 Sing to the LORD a new song, for he has done marvelous things; his right hand and his holy arm have worked salvation for him...
4 Shout for joy to the LORD , all the earth, burst into jubilant song with music; 5 make music to the LORD with the harp, with the harp and the sound of singing, 6 with trumpets and the blast of the ram's horn- shout for joy before the LORD , the King.

7 Let the sea resound, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it. 8 Let the rivers clap their hands, Let the mountains sing together for joy; 9 let them sing before the LORD , for he comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness and the peoples with equity."
Psalm 98:1 & 4-9(NIV)

"Worship the LORD with gladness; come before him with joyful songs."
Psalm 100:2

"My heart is steadfast, O God; I will sing and make music with all my soul." Psalm 108:1

"I will sing a new song to you, O God; on the ten-stringed lyre I will make music to you," Psalm 144:9

"Praise the LORD. Sing to the LORD a new song, his praise in the assembly of the saints."
Psalm 149:1

"Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord,"
Ephesians 5:19(NIV)

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God."
Colossians 3:16

According to the book of Psalms we are to "clap" our "hands" and "Sing to the LORD a new song" and praise the Lord with "jubilant song". Over and over, David exhorts us to sing a new song to the Lord. I love old hims of the faith, but those are not the only songs we can or should sing. We should sing new songs, and not just old tunes with new words, but new words with new tunes. We should sing old words with new tunes. Worship should be a central focus of our churches and in my IFB churches this has been lost.

Most IFB churches still call their morning service the "morning worship service". But how much of this service is dedicated to worship? In many IFB churches 15 minutes of the service are dedicated to songs and the rest is announcements and preaching. I know that many preachers will say that preaching is worship, and in a sense I agree. We need good preaching. But preaching while it may be a form of worship, is not the same or at the core of worship as singing is to God. Look at the book of Psalms, it is one big song book!

In the reformed IFB church I envision, singing would be for at least half of the service. Yes we always need good preaching and teaching, and this should continue to be part of our service.

What kind of preaching would I envision? I believe preaching should be just that - preaching. Preaching is "proclaiming" the Word of God. Now different men have different styles, some like to yell every other line at the top of their lungs, others speak on the same level their entire sermon. While style is not very important, content is.

The Pastor must preach against sin, as clearly outlined in the scriptures. Should the Pastor speak on things not specifically spoken of in the scriptures? Certainly. But he must be careful to draw distinctions from his own applications of the scriptures and what the scriptures plainly say. In most IFB churches the average member does not know the difference between the Pastor's opinion on some issues and what the Bible actually says - they are one and the same.

Then the problem comes when that member moves to another town, or the Pastor leaves and he has a new Pastor. Now some things he thought were in the Bible this Pastor thinks differently on. Instead, if he would have understood the difference between those things which are clearly spelled out in scripture and the Pastor's opinion on other subjects that are not, he would not be confused.

But is it only the Pastor's job to preach against sin? No. He also needs to instruct his flock with his preaching, teaching them how to better witnesses for Christ, how to depend on the Lord in their time of need and such.

Too many Pastors in IFB churches have hobby horses, where every sermon they preach comes back to the same subject. For some its tithing, for others its prophecy, and still others its music. Many other hobby horses could be named but you get the point. For some it is salvation. Now before you fall out of you computer chair let me explain this one.

Is it wrong to include the message of the Gospel in every sermon? Of course not! I believe the Gospel should be given in every sermon, even if at the end. I am disturbed when I don't hear it. What I meant by my earlier comment is that for some preachers thats all they can preach on. For some it is simply because of ignorance, for others it is laziness. A Pastor needs to give his people the whole counsel of God, not just a portion of it, even if it is the most important doctrine in the Bible.

Most people who come to my site probably think the church I envision would teach only Historic Premillennial Prophecy. Well they are wrong, I think that should be left up to the individual. I could see there being different classes offered in Sunday School to articulate the different views in a civil manner. This would expose the members of this church to the fact that there are good men of God who think very differently when in comes to prophecy.

I would probably keep the the classes to a premillennial level while postmillennnialism and ammillenialism could still be discussed.

Historically we don't see this method of evangelism before the 20th century. But just because it is new does that make it bad? Not necessarily. But just because it gets results does that make it good? Not always.

I think this manner of evangelism all comes to down to approach. If you approach someone's home to shove the Bible down their throat then it probably won't work.

I personally have handed out flyers to thousands of homes while I was a teenager and then a young man in church. A few times though, I went "soul winning" with someone. Each time I felt uncomfortable and I could not figure out why. Was it because I was shy? Nope - anyone who knows me knows I could sit on a park bench and talk to a complete stranger any day of the week.

Was I ashamed of my faith, or the fact I was a Christian? Nope - again I have shared my faith at every place I have worked, with all my fellow employees and with my relatives and neighbors. So what is different about door to door? For years I could not put my finger on it, then one day it hit me, one word came to my mind - "unnatural".

What do I mean by "unnatural"? Is is unnatural for a Christian to share his faith? Of course not, for most of us it is something that we naturally do. But most of us naturally share our faith with friends, family or coworkers after we know them. Our family we already have a relationship with, our friends and coworkers we grow with over time. In the natural course of our conversations we can present our faith.

With door to door this is not the case. In door to door, we pick a street and go down each house knocking on the door. We ask the person "If you were to die today would you go to heaven" or some variation of that line. The typical person thinks to themselves - "who is this person and why are they asking me these questions". If the typical door to door enthusiast were to be honest about it, they would tell you most people are annoyed at them. This is an "unnatural" interaction.

But they shrug it off and move on to the next house, after all how would people get saved without door to door evangelism? My answer to this question would be the same answer to another question - how did people get saved before door to door evangalism started in the 20th century?

Now I will say that I have met a few people in my life that have the abilty to turn any interaction into a "natural interaction" and for those people, I say, if thats what the Lord has placed on your heart, and you have the gift of people skills - then go for it!

Two problems can present themselves when it comes to the door to door method. One problem is when that method is put up as the only method, or best method of evangelism. The simple fact is that more people are brought to church through a friend, coworker or relative than door to door. In many IFB churches if you are not willing to go door to door, you are seen as a second rate Christian. The other problem is when people are sent out and not screened by the leaders of the church. Every person who goes door to door is a direct representive of the church. If you have someone out there who is shoving his Bible down people's throats and trying to scare people or argue people into church this brings a reproach upon the name of Christ.

So how would the reformed IFB church I envision handle door to door? They would encourage those who have the ablity to do it, and not look down on those who did not. Its that simple. Each of us have different roles and none of should look down on someone who cannot fulfil the same role we have in the body of Christ.

To summarize everything we have talk about here the reformed IFB church I envision would look like this: They would preach Soverign Grace theology while at the same time refuting hyper-calvinist heresies. They would evangelize as they are commanded to, but in the proper order and way. They would not use gimmicks and emotional techniques in their evangelistic efforts, but would simply preach and proclaim and the Gospel and let the Holy Spirit do his job.

One last thing, and this is for those Pastors who read this with disgust. In this article I attack practices and traditions they hold dear. I want them and everyone else out there to understand this is not personal at all. It is about getting back to the basics, the Scriptures, and leaving everything else in the dust.

There are many men of God, who love the Lord, and do some of the things I disagree with in this article. Does this make them false teachers? No. Does it make them second rate Pastors - No. We all are learning and striving to please the Lord. Some men have deep convictions, whether it is about the KJV, music, or door to door. While I may disagree with them on some things, I still believe they are serving the Lord. This is simply my vision of what I think an IFB church should be.