Would you describe Jesus' responses to the Pharisees of His day as vitriolic too? I believe we have a greater mandate to speak out against & condemn the destructive religious authoritarians within the church than against secular sin within the world. Self-willed legalism is a spiritual cancer which must be exposed for what it is.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What about the IFB Baptist group?
- Thread starter Alive in Christ
- Start date
- Status
Would you describe Jesus' responses to the Pharisees of His day as vitriolic too? I believe we have a greater mandate to speak out against & condemn the destructive religious authoritarians within the church than against secular sin within the world. Self-willed legalism is a spiritual cancer which must be exposed for what it is.
It seems to me that you are referring to one camp, a minority among the IFB churches, which I also have had some bad experiences with. With a little discernment can you not tell where that camp's loyalties lie, where they went to college, who they follow, what kind of philosophy they would have, and where they would have gotten it? Come now people, think!!
Not everyone follows a man. And I dare say that there are very few on this board that are in that particular camp, though there may be a few. Your over-generalization of the IFB churches based on this quote is unfair, absurd, and totally wrong.
How many folks have left a church, because the pastor left - especially when he moved to another church way out of potential commuting distance.
"Well, Pastor Smith is nothing like good 'Ole Pastor Jones"
and I'm sure some left good 'Ole Pastor Jones new church because he wasn't like the pastor he replaced...
I was going to check the list to see if I was on there - but there's far too much to wade through. Seems like they could find something better to do with their time!
Do you actually think that there is some overarching IFB authority that decided our "1000 Top Web Sites?" :laugh: That list is just the idea of some individual, not IFB churches or members getting together to decide.
"Darkness" brother? I respect you, but that's pretty harsh. Are C4K, DHK, Dr. Cassidy, myself and others of us who are IFB here on the BB in "darkness," though we claim the light of the Lord Jesus Christ?
idonthavetimeforthis
New Member
I agree with this statement.
Here's a question for our independent baptist brothers. I know that Clarence Sexton has gotten some heat from David Cloud (one of the extreme IFB) for his Independent Baptist Friends Conference (I think that was the name of it). Did any of you go to it or them (not sure how many he has had) or have any of you heard of this? I think Cloud is against it because Sexton has IFB preachers preach who also preach meetings with SBC preachers (heresy!!!!!!!!...that's sarcasm, in case anyone doesn't get it - I am Southern Baptist). I bet Clarence Sexton could care less about what David Cloud or people like Cloud think of him.
Let’s look at the top five sites in the list of the Top 1,000 sites, the link that was provided near the beginning of the thread:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/
--Totally informational and apologetic. We discussed it already. I wouldn’t use this site.
http://www.learnthebible.org/
--Articles and outlines on Bible issues. Looks like a good site where one could attain an on-line degree if he so desired.
http://bible-truth.org/
--Great site with lots of good information. At first appearance one might think it is KJVO. But here is their position:
http://www.wayoflife.org/
--One may not agree with everything David Cloud says or does. But one cannot argue that he has one of the most informative sites on the WEB. That is why it is so high up in the top 1000, not because of his church.
http://www.onlinebaptist.com/
--This is a KJVO site. It has some good sermons in it. It is not as informative as the above sites.
Note that none of these sites represent any IFB churches. They are put up by men. They are put up by people who want to provide information to others, others often of their persuasion—like the last link. Some are fairly neutral and objective simply giving Biblical knowledge and resources. Is that wrong? They do not reflect IFB churches. They reflect the men who put up the sites. How can you make a judgment about churches based on the popularity of these kind of sites where people go to in order to be informed. They are not churches.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/
--Totally informational and apologetic. We discussed it already. I wouldn’t use this site.
http://www.learnthebible.org/
--Articles and outlines on Bible issues. Looks like a good site where one could attain an on-line degree if he so desired.
http://bible-truth.org/
--Great site with lots of good information. At first appearance one might think it is KJVO. But here is their position:
http://www.wayoflife.org/
--One may not agree with everything David Cloud says or does. But one cannot argue that he has one of the most informative sites on the WEB. That is why it is so high up in the top 1000, not because of his church.
http://www.onlinebaptist.com/
--This is a KJVO site. It has some good sermons in it. It is not as informative as the above sites.
Note that none of these sites represent any IFB churches. They are put up by men. They are put up by people who want to provide information to others, others often of their persuasion—like the last link. Some are fairly neutral and objective simply giving Biblical knowledge and resources. Is that wrong? They do not reflect IFB churches. They reflect the men who put up the sites. How can you make a judgment about churches based on the popularity of these kind of sites where people go to in order to be informed. They are not churches.
I am a "real" IFB and come from a CBA (Myron Cedarholm), GARBC (BBU) (W.B. Riley and his successor R.V. Clearwaters) background. In fact the founders of both were instrumental in my early education and discipleship. Another broad brush?
I don't know anything about this situation, but as you describe it, it does show the diversity of views within the IFB movement.
Note the following IFB schools that are quite different from the caricature painted in this thread:
Maranatha Baptist Bible College: non-KJVO, regionally accredited
Northland Baptist Bible College: non-KJV0, accredited under TRACS, I believe
Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary: Calvinist, scholarly (they have their own quite good theological journal)
Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary: non-KJVO, regionally accredited
Even Hyles-Anderson College/First Baptist of Hammond has moderated their position quite a bit under Jack Schaap. While they might be classified as KJVO, they oppose calling the KJV "inspired." And they now have a mission board that is doing quite well (Hyles never promoted missions much). Schaap is gung ho for world missions.
Last edited by a moderator:
So which of the following do you consider to be "darkness?"
1. Independent. Not lorded over by a man made ecclesiastical hierarchy.
2. Fundamental
The Deity of Christ
The Virgin Birth
The Blood Atonement
The Bodily Resurrection
The Inspiration/infallibility of the Scriptures.
3. Baptist
B: Biblical authority
A: Autonomy of Baptist churches
P: Priesthood of all believers
T: Two ordinances (Baptism & The Lord's Supper)
I: Individual Soul Liberty
S: Saved Church Membership
T: Two Offices (Pastor and Deacon)
S: Separation of church and state
Please expand on your charges that some or all of the above equates to "darkness" - by which I assume you mean Satanic.
Thank you.
Legalism -
includes - certain types of dress -( more than just Modesty), no TV at home, do not believe in celebrating holidays such as Christmas, divorced men can not hold any positions, you must be in church service 5 x's per week and at lest one visitation. pastor looks at books to see how much offering you are giving. Absolutely no CCM or Southern Gospel music, Secondary separation, Pastors demands total control - ect, ect, ect.
Now, I am not saying that some IFB's have all the items stated above, but many have a mix and match.
I'm sure I missed a few.....
TC, the items you listed are the fundamentals of the faith, and those of us who are (true) Southern Baptists accept each and every one of those items on your list. But when it comes to legalism... thats a whole nother story
Salty
ps: and as Southern Baptists - we are independent, as we are NOT lorded over by a man made ecclesiastical hierarchy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Please show me where I posted "Legalism" as one of the fundamentals of the faith or one of the Baptist Distinctives or that I indicated that Southern Baptists were not included in my spiritual family. Thank you.
You didn't - but what I did do was answer your question about "the darkness of IFB!" and I have been a member of such IFB churches.
Yet some IFB churches would say those standards I listed in my other post are fully Biblical fundamental truths.
and many IFB'ers will say that SBC churches are not independent.
You're welcomed
Salty
Last edited by a moderator:
And here is the last word on their position:
I reject all modern English translations because they are based on corrupt Greek manuscripts and the Westcott-Hort Greek text.
http://bible-truth.org/kjvstatement.html
Does that mean you also reject the modern day KJV -remember it is only 400 years old.
So it appears you would rather use one of these two versions:
315 AD: Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identifies the 27 books of the New Testament which are today recognized as the canon of scripture.
382 AD: Jerome's Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test).
Or how about this one:
1568 AD: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a Revision (80 Books).
No attending movies, no dancing, no card playing, no teenagers on one-on-one dates (double dates only), no men's hair over their ears or collars, no women's skirts higher than 2" above the knee when kneeling, no guitars in worship service, music with a syncopated beat is devilish, you must tithe 10% of your time to the church, absolutely no drinking of any alcohol, being a sports fan is wrong, C.S. Lewis was an apostate, smoking cigarettes or cigars is a sin, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
I wasn't taking that position, the website listed in that URL was taking that position. DHK pointed out that they weren't KJVO, but it appears they are.
To be KJVO means that the KJV is the inspired infallible Word of God. They don't take that position. They are simply KJV preferred. I think you need to do more study on this subject. There are many on this board that are not KJVO, but at the same time reject most modern versions based on the text that they were translated from. That is a different issue.
No KJVO would ever say:
- Status