Warning: New Life Baptist Church in Fairfield East NSW Australia preaches false New IFB teaching

New Life Baptist Church in Fairfield East NSW Australia is a church that is pastored by Kevin Sepulveda. There are many reasons that one should not attend this church. Sepulveda himself preaches many doctrines that are not biblical, but that he learned from Victor Tey, who learned them from Steven Anderson, the leader of the New IFB movement which he is a part of.

From the post on this website “What is the New IFB?” Here is the kind of doctrine that is accepted by the small group of churches that this church is a part of:

  1. Independent, Fundamental Baptists have historically believed in the rapture preceding the tribulation,  (pre-trib), but New IFB preachers teach that the rapture is after 3 ½ years of tribulation (Pre-wrath or mid-trib)
  2. Independent, Fundamental Baptists have historically held to a dispensational view of scripture, but New IFB preachers reject this. As a result, they tend to bring commands God gave to Israel in the Old Testament and make them binding upon the New Testament Church. (One such command is that sodomites should be put to death)
  3. Independent, Fundamental Baptists have historically taught that Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone, but the New IFB movement constantly declares that people who disbelieve their views of scripture are not saved (regardless of whether they trusted in Christ), therefore adding works to salvation. New IFB preachers also preach that the person leading you to Christ must themselves be saved, or you cannot be, and that a soulwinner must lead you to Christ – you cannot be saved by reading the Bible alone.
  4. Independent, Fundamental Baptists have historically taught that repentance is an essential part of faith that brings salvation, but the New IFB movement rejects the teaching of salvation repentance.
  5. Independent, Fundamental Baptists have historically preached that all men can be saved, but the New IFB teaches that those who are involved in sodomy cannot be saved, and that instead we should pray for them to die and go to hell. New IFB pastors celebrate if a vigilante shooter kills sodomites.
  6. Independent, Fundamental Baptists have historically taught that the Jews and Israel play important roles in Eschatology, but the New IFB movement rejects this, preaching anti-Israel sermons and denying the holocaust.
  7. Independent, Fundamental Baptists have historically taught that when a person is saved, it produces a change in action, as they are a new creature. The New IFB says that people shouldn’t be expected to change after salvation
  8. Independent, Fundamental Baptists have historically taught that the name “Word of God” referring to Christ does not mean that Christ is literally the Bible or that the Bible is God, but the New IFB believes that the Bible is literally God.

In addition to these major errors, “New IFB” pastors, following the example of their leader, Steven Anderson, tend to bring conspiratorial elements into their preaching and practice, commonly supporting 9/11 conspiracies, anti-flouridation, anti-vaccination, and other strange movements.

Post Author: Joshua Lindsey

My name is Joshua Lindsey. I live in Minnesota, and with my wife and baby daughter am a faithful member of my local independent Baptist Church. I have taught Sunday School classes and children’s classes, and also had the opportunity to preach at several churches. I teach Bible college classes on the Pentateuch, Atheism and Faith, Comparative Denominations, Bible Preservation (A defense of the underlying texts of the KJV), Bible Geography and Customs, Church Graphic Design, and some others. My father is an Independent Baptist Pastor in Wisconsin, and I grew up in a home full of love for the Lord. My parents raised me in the Bible, and are faithful to this day in witnessing and discipling. Although I was constantly immersed in biblical teaching and preaching, I did not personally believe in Jesus as described in John 3:16 until my freshman year in Bible college. In the many years since then, I have grown in grace and the Lord has given me opportunity to serve him in ministry. Among other ministries, I run my church’s print shop and participate in door-to-door evangelism. In doctrine, I affirm the truth that has been passed down from church to church since the time of Christ. I affirm the deity of Christ, his death, burial, and bodily resurrection, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, the virgin birth, the inerrancy and infallibility of the scriptures, the inspiration and preservation of the scriptures, the imminent return of Christ and his future literal millennial reign. I accept the canonicity of the 66 books of scripture, I believe that God commands all men to repent, that Christ draws all men to himself, that any person can believe and be saved. I believe salvation cannot be forfeited or taken away. I believe Christ’s command to go to all the world and preach the Gospel is still applicable to us today. I believe in a future literal judgment seat of Christ and a Great white throne judgment. I believe that no person will enter heaven except through Jesus Christ. I reject all false religions: Islam, Judaism, new Age, etc. I reject the teaching that God elects some men to damnation, giving them no chance to be saved. I reject the idea that God did not preserve his words and that recent manuscript discoveries provide us with a more accurate Bible that was not available to past generations of Christians. I reject the concept of a universal church. I reject the idea that Baptism plays a part in salvation. I believe many things additionally not listed here. My views align with the scripture and with the beliefs that faithful churches have held since the time of Christ, and have held under the title of “Baptist” for many centuries now.

25 thoughts on “Warning: New Life Baptist Church in Fairfield East NSW Australia preaches false New IFB teaching

    The Repenter

    (October 31, 2018 - 4:48 pm)

    I was wondering, Have you ever been wrong in what you thought was to be true?

      Joshua Lindsey

      (October 31, 2018 - 4:54 pm)

      The final authority on truth is the Bible, not me or you. As a born again believer I know that the Bible can be understood and the truth can be known. We are to reject that which goes against the scriptures.

      Let God be true and every man a liar.

      The fact that every man is fallible is a weak argument to not challenge error and present truth. Otherwise we should never preach, never so apologeticels or polemics.

      This website is dedicated to exposing the untrue so that all can compare it with scripture.

      Every person on earth has been wrong, including myself. But we must not allow our human failure to get in the way of believing God’s word. Our failures come when we don’t point out the error of departing from the authority of the Bible

    The Repenter

    (November 1, 2018 - 5:16 am)

    No one would disagree that we should stand for the truth and against error. I would like to have dialogue regarding some of the many issues you have found with the new IFB. And I wish to do so on the comment section of this post. If you are able to oblige then perhaps we could discuss what you find most troubling with the new IFB first. My name and who I am is not as important as the truth that I seek with meekness and with shame in the sight of God.

      The Repenter

      (November 1, 2018 - 5:18 am)

      Lol, I mean without shame

        Joshua Lindsey

        (November 1, 2018 - 6:59 am)

        If it is without shame then please tell me your name.

    The Repenter

    (November 1, 2018 - 11:13 am)

    Great point, I am without shame when I seek the truth in the sight of God and man, but I’m not here to buy fireworks. But if you insist then please call me J. Moving forward hopefully, I would be glad to hear more about your passion against the new IFB movement. Because examining both traditional and nontraditional, I find many faults with individuals and some of the rhetoric. But in knowing that I too have been passionate in things I’ve learned of since to be wrong, what is the most outrageous error(s) that you have about said group?

    The Repenter

    (November 1, 2018 - 1:51 pm)

    This 11 minute video gives us a brief synopsis of the Independent Fundamental Baptist movements Inception. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a9RSIj45oAI
    My take away is that even though certain individuals of the southern Baptist organization did not always agree with each other, but there was enough agreement to break away from its national convention memberships. I am sharing the video not because it is detailed, because it is not. It just help me get a birds eye view of shoot from the hip independent Baptist history. Now, looking at the list from the link you had prescribed… I was wondering which of the numbered bullets would you suggest is such that would cause for concern regarding the salvation of the souls of a new IFB member?
    Perhaps that should be the right start for our dialogue.

    Joshua Lindsey

    (November 1, 2018 - 2:43 pm)

    That is an interesting video and a nice picture into a slice of Baptist history, but really says very little about the Independent Baptists.

    Independent Baptists are not a “movement” They have not moved. They teach the same things and have been in existence since the time of Christ. Though some have at times aligned with “conventions” or “fellowships”, these were not what defined them. The church I am from, and the church that planted it, and the church that planted that one have never been part of any other organization or association.

    The inception of the independent Baptist Church was when Christ started one. (It obviously wan’t called “Baptist” at that time, but it was independent and believed and practiced everything that is taught and practiced in (obedient) Independent Baptist Churches today.

    The NEW IFB is endangering souls mainly in the way that Churches that believe in the Flat-Earth are endangering souls. Because of certain things they do they are causing Baptists to be dismissed without us being able to give the Gospel.

    People dismiss them because of the following:
    #1- The ridiculous conspiracies they promote (Chemtrails, GMO lies, Anti-vaccine, Water fluoridation)
    #2- The silly arguments based on twisting a verse or two (Steven Anderson’s doctrine of men supposed to stand up to urinate, Jesus is literally the Bible, Jesus went to a burning hell)
    #3- The desired enforcement of OT law on NT Christians (Wanting the government to execute Sodomites)

    Doctrine they teach that could send people to hell includes:
    #1- They refuse to evangelize certain people because they claim to know who the reprobates are.
    #2- New IFB teaching on repentance means that a person doesn’t need to trust Christ alone. (The New IFB is very inconsistent on repentance though so it is hard to tell what any individual soul winner is saying)
    #3 They are leading thousands of people in shallow false professions, people who don’t know enough to actually believe, and therefore making these people think they are OK when they really are not.

    Of course, just a s most of the things they criticize Independent Baptists for are not things relating to salvation, a majority of their error too is not related to salvation.

    The Repenter

    (November 1, 2018 - 3:38 pm)

    OK, thanks for that info. I’ve also heard that the name Baptist stuck when their enemies (the catholics) declared then ana Baptist, but became Baptist for short because they rebaptist those who had under went [no pun intended] the Catholic sacrament as a child or infant.

    Anyways, I wanted to establish the historical understanding of from both our angles and yes I agree on the King James version for studying the word and learning God’s truths, but I am not dogmatic when it comes to someone possibly receiving salvation in the KJV only.

    Is it good to say that you believe/know the new IFB teaches a non repentance salvation and that this type of teaching is not able to save souls from damnation?

    Joshua Lindsey

    (November 1, 2018 - 3:57 pm)

    I would not say exactly that, since Repentance can be taught without the word repentance being used. I believe that they are inconsistent, and rail against churches that teach repentance by name, but actually many new IFB churches do believe in repentance themselves too. However, because of this inconsistency, their door-to-door soulwinners are prone to leave out important parts of the gospel such as requiring the exclusivity of Christ.

    My position on repentance is here, FYI: http://readytoharvest.com/2015/07/16/the-confusion-surrounding-easy-believism-and-lordship-salvation-explained-and-the-biblical-position-outlined/

    The Repenter

    (November 2, 2018 - 4:34 am)

    I have read through your article and can say that there isn’t much difference between the doctrine of repentance held by you and the new ifb.
    Before I should explain how I come to this conclusion, let me first explain my position on the matter.

    Four main things occur in a person who puts their faith in Christ alone.

    1. They are admitting they are a sinner
    2. Subsequently, they have a destination (hell)
    3. They are fleeing from the wrath of God
    4. Because they are turning to Christ for refuge

    Of course, when they are coming to Christ alone for salvation it is because they cannot do anything tangibly to save themselves,

    1. Ceasing from transgressing the law to be eligible for salvation and or maintain it is not acceptable.
    2. They must turn from worshipping idol(s) including themselves (aka. satanists)
    3. They must call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to ask for the free gift.

    Now if they have genuinely believed by not inserting their own works, and the gospel they heard and believed is not another Jesus, but the Jesus of the bible then by all means count that person as saved. Amen.

    The doctrine of repentance and of faith toward God are interwoven in this since.

    However, once we are in Christ (new creature) we are commanded to be baptized as an answer of a good conscience toward God. We are commanded from henceforth not serve sin. We are commanded to love one another. Etc.

    The distinction that I believe the new IFB is hammering is that receiving the Spirit genuinely to be in Christ and being led of the Spirit to renew the mind to serve Christ are decisions that person makes, but the later is not a prerequisite nor a necessity of eligibility for salvation nor of to maintain salvation.

    I have seen and heard IFB Baptist say that there must be a willingness to not sin, but the question the new ifb has is…

    I much willingness does a person need to know they must have before they can be sure they are ready for salvation and to know they still have it.

    Their are people in both camps that would attempt to frustrate the grace of God, but in the new IFB I think those people would stick out like a sour thumb.

    This may not be convincing for you, but I would like to hear more of your thoughts in response to my angle on all this.

      Joshua Lindsey

      (November 2, 2018 - 7:09 am)

      I agree with everything you say up to the paragraph on the distinction the New IFB is hammering, which I don’t fully understand what you are trying to say. Can you rephrase it?

      I don’t accept the “willingness” clauses for salvation (as I mention in the article.)

    The Repenter

    (November 2, 2018 - 8:27 am)

    Sure thing.
    It’s my understanding the new IFB disagree with people who say there needs to be a willingness to not sin to be eligible for salvation and or maintain external life. And the new IFB response to those people is in the form of a question…

    How much willingness does someone need to have in order to know they are eligible for salvation and or continue having salvation?

    The new IFB seems to be asking it in such a way that causes such opposition where that person wants to double down and suggest that the new IFB is sloppy agape. I have studied the “new ifb” extensively enough to know that somethings about them are misunderstood for various reasons. Some of those reasons are worth finding out why. This is what I would like to continue to do with you in this dialogue.

    Hope that cleared up any confusion. Looking at my last comment I noticed a couple typos that might have added to or caused confusion.

      Joshua Lindsey

      (November 2, 2018 - 8:31 am)

      First I need to clear something up… you refer to the New IFB as talking about “continuing to have salavtion” but both myself and the New IFB believe in eternal security… so what do you mean?

    The Repenter

    (November 2, 2018 - 9:48 am)

    The new IFB sarcastically will ask someone who believes that a willingness must be present for salvation… “How much willingness do you need to know you have to then know for sure that you are eligible for salvation and continue in that salvation?” The point the new IFB is making is that how can you measure up your willingness? A little bit of willingness, a lot of willingness? It’s just an antidote to refute the willingness doctrine for salvation. You see there is this hyper awareness regarding the word “repent” when not explained before and after each use of the word.

    If I say “repent of your sins and receive Jesus” the unbelievers may think that they must cease from transgressing the law in which they conclude impossible and therefore tune out.

    If the new IFB hears “repent of your sins” they believe that this is adding to the gospel and will refute this passionately.

    If you hear me say “repent of your sins and receive Jesus” depending on how you learned about repentance…you might conclude that your turning to Jesus because of the fact that your a sinner and not because it sounds like I’m saying stop sinning.

    The new IFB will say to me “show me in the Bible where it says “repent of your sins to be saved”

    I couldn’t show them that because the phrase “repent of your sins” simply doesn’t exist in the Bible.

    So that’s the confusion I think. Is it simply a misunderstanding or am I missing something?

    What you believe and what the new IFB believe and what I believe about repentance for salvation is the same. Is it not. The word repent is just simply not being defined each and every time it is used and the hyper awareness brings conflict. So I’m glad we are defining this for better dialogue.

      Joshua Lindsey

      (November 2, 2018 - 10:00 am)

      It is hard to tell where exactly the New IFB stands on repentance because they argue passionately against “repent of your sins” out of one side of their mouth and then actually teach quite a bit of repentance for salvation, under different terminology.

      I don’t think they are consistent. I don’t think they all stand in the same place. But I do know where I stand.

    The Repenter

    (November 2, 2018 - 12:09 pm)

    Yea, I understand your point. However, we need a doctrine for the unpardonable and unforgiven in this life and in the next.
    What terminology have you found the new IFB using that seems to contradict?

      Joshua Lindsey

      (November 4, 2018 - 8:11 am)

      What do you mean by “seems to contradict?” Contradict with what?

      I also don’t see how your response explains the question I gave you about eternal security.

    The Repenter

    (November 2, 2018 - 3:35 pm)

    If I had to guess the terminology… Would one that comes to mind be the new IFB reprobate doctrine?

    The Repenter

    (November 4, 2018 - 8:20 am)

    First I want to say that I noticed our text submission timestamps are out of sync, which can cause some conflict of our communication.

    However, maybe the word contradict was not the proper word… You stated…
    “I don’t think they are consistent. I don’t think they all stand in the same place. ”
    I was inquiring as to what exactly caused the inconsistency that you mentioned?

      Joshua Lindsey

      (November 4, 2018 - 8:23 am)

      It is because some of the people will preach in their soulwinning that a person needs to understand they are a sinner and perhaps do a thorough gospel presentation that even includes repentance under other names, but others in the movement eat the pulpit drama hook line and sinker, and so they just do a 123 repeat after me kind of soulwinning.

    The Repenter

    (November 4, 2018 - 10:47 am)

    “repentance under another name” could you elaborate? This is intriguing.

    The Repenter

    (November 5, 2018 - 3:24 pm)

    Just pinging back at ya, is this dialogue still active?

    The Repenter

    (November 7, 2018 - 3:35 am)

    Hey. It was a good back and forth,
    You know, I had a guy tell me once that if a person who believes the grace message, but doesn’t have a Bible, that, that person probably isn’t saved.
    I told him that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation, not whether or not that person owns a Bible.
    That’s the problem in our own backyard, we think we can be justified in our judgement of someone else’s salvation because of their non action.
    If the person is doing something worthy of exclusion, don’t count them as an enemy, but admonish them.
    Now if the person stops believing, you could stand in doubt of them to be saved, and give them the message agaib, but if they claim the right gospel then judge nothing before the time.

    In your zeal to expose the new IFB I would like to see more exposure of the faults in your own camp, so to have balance. And perhaps see more similarities rather than differences.

    Good bye and it was nice chatting with you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *