Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
The Bible church model sounds interesting. Is that the same as Bible Baptist?
|
I think all it takes to declare yourself a Bible church is to do it. Now if you are really off from the primarily calvinist, dispensational, pre-trib rapture, and evangelical, bent; and if your sermons are not close enough to being seminary-lecture quality (being a little facetious on that point), then you might be laughed at for trying to suggest that you are really the same thing. But no one owns the name. There is no association to apply to.
Strong enough affiliation that they are never entirely independent. But the dependence is entirely by choice. A couple of steps less than Baptists in general. I really don't know about Bible Baptists. I would have figured them as another in the general genre of Baptists.
I have a cousin that is a deacon or elder (not sure which) in what is common referred to as a "hard shell Baptist" church. They are really something different. Closed communion. Very hard stands on several points we would call peripheral. Very few members. Makes some home meetings seem large. Yet they have a strong affiliation within their region with other similarly-named groups. Other regions are similar, but with less affiliation between the groups than between the assemblies within any one group.
Bible churches clearly differ among themselves. All open communion (probably). But the level of holding to doctrines differs. IBC has clear positions that are almost irrelevant when it comes to participating, or (at some level) even becoming a member. They sure don't require you to toe their line to preach (at least as a guest). We had a very prominent preacher/theologian from Chicago here several years ago. I do not know his actual affiliation, but his theology is Arminian. This stands in contrast to the typical Calvinist position of Bible churches in general. Methodists and Assemblies of God follow an Arminian teaching (among others). (I'm not sure but what it is a mix of the two anyway.) (And when you think Arminian, think Troy Brooks. Not crazed like him, but still of that leaning.) He not only spoke, he openly made reference to the difference in opinion on the issue. The point was that many are seeing the differences as of little real consequence. And while there were probably some in attendance that did not agree with that thought, they were a small minority.