Where is the IFB Sytematic Theology?

This is where you are wrong. Because of your limited experience and listening to some other complaints on this board, you are attacking the minority of IFB people. I wish you would understand that.

 

I think that part of the problem we are seeing on this thread is in the designation IFB itself. For me and for many others when I think of IFB I think of churchs where it is KJVO, women are not allowed to wear pants, no mixed "bathing" and junk like that. That is many peoples perception of IFB. I understand that IFB is a much larger grouping than that but unfortunately because of what you could call extreme IFB it is very difficult to seperate. I grew up in one of these extreme IFB churchs, went to one of their "Bible colleges", and have been involved with or associated with many of these churchs (no exaggeration probably close to 100+ when you factor in all the conferences, youth group meetings, and being part of a traveling singing group). I keep reading that these churchs are limited to the south but all my experiences were in the midwest (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas mainly but also Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Washington state where some relatives attend churchs like this). Luke is absolutely right in calling these "churchs" out their preaching while maybe not heretical in the strictest sense is definitely wrong and unBiblical and in NO way furthers the Gospel. Again I understand that these churchs do not make up every single IFB church in America but to me they do because I have never seen one not like this. When you factor in what others on BB have related (thinking abcgrad, menageriekeeper, tinytim, luke, myself and others). When does it become acknowledged that it is NOT just a small regional problem but a rather significant issue of a fairly large number of "IFB" churchs that are preaching and teaching things that are not correct and boil down to simple man made opinions and not good ones at that. If it was just a wrong view of church history that in and of itself I have no real issue with (not saying it is not important but I personally have no issue with), but it is not just church history, it is the teaching that the KJV is the ONLY correct version all others are satanic (every single IFB church I have ever been in the pastor has worked that into the sermon somewhere). It is the preaching that if a woman wears pants she is not a good christian and possibly (probably) not saved (again all of the IFB I have attended have preached that). It is the whole litany of other non biblical things that somehow they attach to the bible and then make it a test of spirituality. Actually had a preacher tell me when I asked him to pray for my brother who was (is) battleing depression issues that my brother was obviously not saved or if he was he wasn't a good christian as no spiritual christian would have depression issues. My brother IS in fact saved and at the time was serving as a youth worker in his church (baptist). This is what Luke is calling out, this tripe that is somehow associated with the bible and used to beat people over the head with. I understand that the Bible is the Sword of the Spirit and that the HS uses the bible to penetrate into our souls to work repentance and conviction, but the Bible is NOT the club of the preacher to bludgeon people into submission. Are these things heresy? I would say so but I also understand that in the absolute strictest sense of the word they are not. They are however ungodly and unbiblical and need to be renounced and called out for the (imho) wickedness that they are. Again just to try to cover myself a little let me again stress that I fully understand that not all IFB are like this (I just have never met any that were not). What I wonder however is, do those of you that claim the name IFB understand that it is NOT just a few scattered churchs mainly in the south that are like this? Okay thus ends my rant you may now return to your regularly scheduled rant!

 

Ashleysdad,
I am a missionary. I have been for over 25 years and thus have done a lot of traveling. I have been from the west coast to the east coast in both nations (Canada and the U.S.), as far south as South Carolina and Georgia, and further north than you can imagine. The only churches I go to are IFB. There is a small segment that are KJVO, etc. The vast majority has good quality preaching with pastors that have graduated from quality seminaries. They use the Greek and Hebrew in their preaching which a KJVO would be reluctant to do. Many dress very conservatively, but not by mandate. I would say that because of you and Luke's localities your experience is a lot different. But I travel lots. And I don't find that the average IFB church is what you describe. We have five IFB churches in our area. One of them has made a switch to using the NKJ Bible. The others I would classify as KJV preferred. But none of them are KJVO. In three of them the teens wear jeans or at least pants a lot. In two of them they are encouraged but not mandated to wear dresses or skirts. If a person doesn't like the higher dress standards of one church they can always go to another and vice-versa. All of the churches are fairly conservative in their music. I could go on. But does it matter?

We have choices. What Luke and some others describe is definitely in the minority and comes primarily from one school of thought. It is wrong, if not sin, to brandish everyone else the same way.

 

Believe what you will to fall asleep at night. You are attacking IFB. Otherwise (as I stated before) your question would have been directed towards landmarkism, not IFB.

Just like SOME masons are thinking correctly. At the core they are founded on evil.

It is very elementary thinking to assume that all IFB are what you think they are. Intelligent people recognize that IFB is just that: Independent. Each one is responsible for what it teaches. While some follow the teaching of others, it does not mean that all/many/a majority/anyone else follows the same teaching.

Well, I thought that I was pretty clear that they are trying to win them for Christ. But if you are so against IFB that you assumed something else, then I guess I am not surprised.

And yet you state:

Am I too assume then, that you are a psychic or mentalist, since you know what thinking these people have?

Then why are you attacking the IFB, and not Landmarkism?

If they are Landmarkists, yes. But not because they're IFB.

 

And I thought I'd add this remark for the record:

I have not studied the history enough to decide for myself whether or not I believe there was an unbroken line. I do know this though: it doesn't affect my salvation, or hamper my ability to influence others for Christ. To me, the issue of whether or not there is an unbroken line all the way back is about as important as the question "what color was Adam's skin?"

If you have to have a good, solid grasp on history to be effective for Christ, then I guess God was mistaken when he said (para) "My word shall not return void". The way i read that it says that as long you are giving out the word, you'll be rewarded. The only history that I need to have a solid grasp on is my own: I once was lost, but now am found; was blind, but now I see.

 

ashleysdad nailed it.

Others are just in denial concerning these facts.

 

Finally, an admission that you are attacking IFB. Regardless of why you think you are, you finally admitted that you are.

And that wasn't what I was talking about. I assumed you were a psychic based upon the fact that you knew what the Episcopalians were thinking, and whether or not they knew what was going on. Please try to take my words in context of the quotes I am responding to.

It does not matter the origins of the doctrine. If it is right, it is right. If the mormons worked out truth, it's still truth. If the RCC worked it out, it's still truth. Truth is truth, no matter the source. I don't believe it because someone told me to. I believe it because I am convinced it is true. The origins of the truth have no bearing on whether I choose to believe it or not.

No, they sent out a word. They perverted the true word.

Funny, I thought that I am saved because of the grace of God, but you in your infinite understanding of history must know more than those of us who like to keep things simple, and call truth truth.

And i appreciate the fact that God's word and the doctrines were preserved throughout the years. However, the source is not important. Only that God saw fit to bring it to me down through the years.

 

It is amazing how those (IFB) who are the most critical & condemning of different-minded believers attempt to define their detractors as mere haters. Legalistic IFB philosophy is steeped in ignorance & arrogance. This is not an attack on the misguided individual believer, but is a repudiation of a spiritually destructive ideology that seeks to control the spirituality of others.
IFB's defend themselves from accountability the same way as liberal democrats; by ignoring the substance of the accusation & accusing the accusers of just being "haters". At least this is how it was done in the dozens & dozens of IFB churches I was associated with.

 

And not in the 100s of IFB I have been to or am associated with.

According to a 2008 survey, there are over 13,719 IFB churches in the US alone, with over 4876 foreign missionaries, meaning there are 1000s of IFB churchees overseas. This makes such anecdotal generalizations as your absurd.

 

Moderators, isn't 36 pages enough for this pathetic mis-spell of a thread, now admitted by Luke to be an attack on the very people this forum is designed for? I've never seen a thread go so long. Wasn't there a 20 page rule of some kind?
:tonofbricks::BangHead:

 

Good point