SERIES: WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND WHY IT MATTERS | DR. RANDY WHITE
Download these notes here: https://humble-sidecar-837.notion.site/I-F-C-A-Independent-Fundamental-Churches-of-America-IFCA-234b35a87d6380e08e84ee8ef656c297?source=copy_link
FOREWORD
Purpose: Examine denominations through biblical literalism.
Subject: IFCA International’s doctrinal statement.
Importance: Statements are theological contracts, not paperwork.
Goal: Biblical analysis, not judgment of salvation or integrity.
Approach: Precision and clarity in comparing articles to Scripture.
INTRODUCTION TO IFCA INTERNATIONAL
Founded in 1930; independent and fundamentalist.
Conservative theology, dispensationalism, local-church autonomy.
Emphasizes doctrinal orthodoxy, biblical inerrancy, ecclesiastical separation.
Serves faithfully in local churches and mission contexts without celebrity culture.
FIRST, A DISCLAIMER
No doctrinal statement can fully capture Scripture’s depth.
Statements clarify and summarize but cannot exhaust biblical theology.
Human documents have inherent limitations and historical biases.
Our evaluation judges articles by Scripture, not Scripture by articles.
ON THE NATURE OF REQUIRED SUBSCRIPTION
Subscription required for IFCA membership is absolute.
Subscription clause functions as a creed and interpretive authority.
1. CREEDAL FUNCTION IN A SUPPOSEDLY NON-CREEDAL FELLOWSHIP
Subscription requirement creates a creedal, not non-creedal, reality.
2. SUBSCRIPTION AS A TOOL OF THEOLOGICAL CONTROL
Doctrinal submission becomes a condition for fellowship.
Articles, not Scripture, effectively determine orthodoxy.
3. INSTITUTIONAL INERTIA AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF REVISION
Subscription prevents members from proposing changes.
Creates a closed, unchangeable doctrinal system.
4. THEOLOGICAL LOYALTY VS. INSTITUTIONAL LOYALTY
Subscription equates institutional loyalty with theological fidelity.
Individual scriptural conviction is subordinate to institutional interpretation.
5. NO ROOM FOR GROWTH OR DISAGREEMENT
No allowance for doctrinal refinement or honest dissent.
Creates theological dishonesty or forced resignation.
A NECESSARY WARNING
Statement places articles above Scripture functionally.
Advocates humility and biblical openness rather than absolutism.
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
Affirms verbal inspiration and final authority—commendable.
Weakness: Limits inerrancy to original writings, now unavailable.
Result: Undermines practical authority and calls for a doctrine of preservation.
THE GODHEAD
Affirms traditional Trinitarian language—orthodox in form.
Problem: “Co-equal” and “co-identical” terminology risks modalism.
Biblical distinctions (invisibility of Father, embodiment of Son) unclear.
Trinitarian language needs clarification to preserve functional distinctions.
ON THE PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD: AN IMBALANCE IN EMPHASIS
Statement robust on Christ and Holy Spirit but omits God the Father entirely.
Risks theological imbalance, weakening Trinitarian clarity.
Commendable Christology and standard evangelical terminology noted.
Language regarding Holy Spirit vague and invites subjective interpretation.
THE TOTAL DEPRAVITY OF MAN
Affirms image of God at creation, but implies loss at fall—problematic.
Uses Calvinistic “total depravity” without sufficient clarification.
Implies inability to respond to Gospel without divine enablement.
Result: Gospel itself is insufficient without special enablement—Calvinistic determinism implied but unstated explicitly.
THE TWO NATURES OF THE BELIEVER
Claims believers have two natures—“old” (totally depraved) and “new.”
Logical contradiction: cannot be partially totally depraved.
Claims old nature cannot be eradicated, limiting Holy Spirit’s power.
Results in theological confusion rather than scriptural clarity.
SEPARATION
Highlights fundamentalism’s distinct doctrine of separation clearly—commendable.
Segment “a” affirms separation from apostasy and worldly practices.
Critique: Lacks explicit reference to ecclesiastical separation.
True fundamentalism requires local-church separation, even from organizations that may impose doctrinal subscription (e.g., IFCA itself).
Ironically, IFCA’s subscription requirements contradict classical fundamentalist separatism principles.
Segment “b” clearly affirms biblical sexual ethics.
Commendable stance in contemporary cultural confusion.
Affirms sexual intimacy exclusively within genetically defined, monogamous, heterosexual marriage.
THE MINISTRY AND SPIRITUAL GIFTS
Segment "a" commendations:
Affirms God's sovereignty in spiritual gifts.
Segment "a" critiques:
Limits active spiritual gifts strictly to evangelists, pastors, and teachers—unusual and unclear.
Conflict with scriptural teaching that every believer has a gift (1 Corinthians 12:7).
Vague explanation of cessationism; unclear timing and historical context of gift cessation.
Segment "b" commendations:
Clearly restricts pastoral and elder offices to biblically qualified men.
Provides flexibility in terminology for church structures.
Segment "c" critiques:
Narrowly focuses prayer effectiveness only on "sick and afflicted."
Language feels defensive rather than doctrinally precise.
Raises unanswered questions about the scope and nature of prayer.
THE CHURCH
Segment "a" commendations:
Avoids typical universal church terminology, emphasizing dispensational distinction "of this present age."
Segment "a" critiques:
Ambiguous phrase "body and bride of Christ" conflates two distinct biblical metaphors.
Lacks clarity regarding dispensational interpretation differences (e.g., Israel or New Jerusalem as bride).
Ambiguous term "spiritual organism" lacks precision and potentially confuses rather than clarifies.
Segment "b" commendations:
Clearly affirms the importance of local church establishment and continuance as scriptural.
Segment "c" critiques:
Claims autonomy from external authority yet requires doctrinal, administrative, and financial subscription to IFCA—functional contradiction.
Segment "d" commendations:
Affirms ordinances (baptism and Lord's Supper) as symbols, not sacraments.
Segment "d" critiques:
Unclear if ordinances are mandatory or merely encouraged.
Lacks clear definition of "ordinances" and their relation to church identity and practice.
DISPENSATIONALISM
Commendations:
Clearly affirms natural, literal interpretation of Scripture revealing dispensations.
Explicitly identifies age of Law, Church age, and Millennial Kingdom.
Critiques:
Ambiguous and problematic exclusion of salvation as dispensational responsibility.
Leaves unclear what dispensational responsibilities entail if unrelated to eternal consequences.
Risks reducing dispensations to mere behavioral or ceremonial distinctions.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Commendations:
Clearly identifies and opposes movements contrary to fundamentalist faith (ecumenism, neo-orthodoxy, neo-evangelicalism).
Critiques of "Covenant of Faith":
Contradicts claim of Scripture sufficiency by making doctrinal statement essential to sound faith.
Elevates doctrinal statement to an epistemological authority equivalent to Scripture.
Uses doctrinal statement as gatekeeper for fellowship, undermining Scripture's authority and sufficiency.
Institutionalizes doctrinal rigidity, preventing biblical correction or clarification.
