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:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
I was wondering, Have you ever been wrong in what you thought was to be true?
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… Read more »
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.
Lol, I mean without shame
If it is without shame then please tell me your name.
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?
Most of the major errors of the New IFB can be seen at this page: https://newifb.info/index.php/2018/06/07/what-is-the-new-ifb/
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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/
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… Read more »
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.)
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… Read more »
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 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… Read more »
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.
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?
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.
If I had to guess the terminology… Would one that comes to mind be the new IFB reprobate doctrine?
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?
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.
“repentance under another name” could you elaborate? This is intriguing.
Just pinging back at ya, is this dialogue still active?
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… Read more »