Featured Why he left IFB

Very Curious...

Luke...I sincerely mean you no ill will but your language and demeanor regarding this topic seems to be placing you in the same league with the very people you are apparently attempting to condemn or at the very least criticize. I would expect this kind of vitriol from someone who kept company with Dr. Ruckman's camp or some of the Creationist-condemning atheist crowd but I definitely think it is badly counter-productive when you paint with such a broad brush condemning so many who are undoubtedly our brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ....even when we may disagree with some of their "stands" or their evangelistic methodology. If they were denying the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, the Blood atonement of Christ, or that the Bible was, in fact, the Word of God, or something vital such as that then I might be right there with you. As to the "standards" that many, if not all, IFB's so fervently preach....IF...and I do say IF...they were preaching those things as something one had to do IN ORDER TO BE SAVED OR STAY THAT WAY then I would join you in soundly condemning them as legalists or modern day Pharisees....but 99.9% of them can't be rightly accused of any such thing. As a former (and still probably a "closet") IFB I can tell you that their motivation for such standards is that one be seperate and distinctly different from the "world"...in pursuit of a holy lifestyle that honors God. In most cases, they have scripture (or they believe "principles" taught therein) that they believe justifies the positions they proclaim and teach. I see far more compromise (both inside and outside of the church) in the IFB OR the SBC ranks by people who have no apparent problem looking, acting, smelling, dressing and talking, or pursuing the same "spirit" of narcissism that so pervades this modern culture...with no apparent concern or conviction as to whether what they are doing is pleasing OR offensive to the Holy God of the Bible. As I said....I mean you no ill-will but I would (if I were you...or anybody) be very cautious who and for what you condemn or berate. Be sure that what you are doing is in the Spirit of Galatians 5: 22-25. I hope you will take this post in the constructive spirit in which I intended it.

Bro.Gregraying::saint:

 

Preaching wine use in the NT is grape juice, boys and girls swimming together is a sin, playing cards is a sin, going to movies, dancing, listening to CC music, long hair on men, etc. etc. are sins is doctrinal error. It's wrong. Period.

Anyone that sits under this sort of preaching is listening to error.

 

That is your opinion..

That is your opinion and you are more than welcome and entitled to it. Now...I will offer mine...While I can't strictly disagree with all of what you said (except the blanket statement that all of the above is "error") I will say that I would far rather sit under the kind of preaching that has a HIGH VIEW of Biblical holiness and the doctrine of Scriptural separation than to sit under the kind of preaching that DOESN'T...or to entangle myself with the theological compromise of our day that leads people to embrace the kind of carnal, worldly behaviour that we see in the "emerging" Churches or the unscriptural Charismatic assemblies of our day. They also see no problem with any or most all of the stuff you have listed above. Those people display almost NO spiritual discernment at all. Just watch (almost) any show on the TBN channel or their affiliates on any given day. If I wanted a group of people to mimick guys like Creflo Dollar or Benny Hinn or Paul and Jan Crouch then I'd think that way too. Otherwise...give me someone who at least tries to honestly follow what the Bible either directly says...or deductively teaches in principle.raying:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Well Luke and ABC I truly do not know how to respond to your accusations. So let me say in this last post on this subject (I hope) that your approach is very similar to what I would expect to hear from those you are attacking.

I have heard nearly 8000 messages from IFB pastors, evangelists and missionaries over the 42 years I have been saved. Among those speakers are a few who have fallen and are no longer in ministry or are dead (three, I believe). I have heard preachers make fun of long hair and describe it as a sign of rebellion against society while basing their humor on 1 Cor. 11, I have heard preachers tell women they ought to dress modestly for the sake of those who are looking at them, I even heard a former president of SBC say at a national meeting that woman need to consider Proverbs 7 when they dress because there is a method of dress that identifies a woman as having a wondering eye. I have never heard a preacher or teacher say or imply that what you wear, what you read or what you do with your hair will send you to hell.

Finally my friends I would say you have done a marvelous job of casting all IFB personnel into hell after of course you have thoroughly beaten us with a cat of nine tails and bandaged us with salt and dirty rags. That should teach us not try to live holy and separated lives nor should we strive to lead people to Christ for they will just be abused by those perverted ungodly IFBers. My Goodness I had no idea that we were so wicked thank you for exposing us with your wealth of experience and the hundreds or was that dozens of church examples you have given us. I will leave my local New Testament church in the morning and tell my pastor I learned today that he is a wicked man who is abusing our congregation. That he and his staff are out of Gods will for trying to win souls and that he cannot preach on modesty anymore because it’s abusive. Oh I almost forgot we can no longer use the KJV because that leads churches to living under the law.

Thank you both for your kindness in showing me the right way may God bless you and continue to place your experiences above the bible. Just think we have a wonderful example of Dynamic Equivalency right here. Wow!!

Keep in mind that my response here is somewhat tongue in cheek old boy(s).

LOL
:BangHead::tongue3:

 

Oh My Goodness

I do believe you guys (Luke and ABC) succeeded in rubbing the fur on the cat the WRONG WAY! Kinda like going to a gunfight with a knife.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Could you please explain what you mean by this?

What part of my experience is being placed above the BIBLE? The part of witnessing spiritual, physical, and sexual abuse in homes and churches? That's Biblical? Or the part of my classmates and brothers being black and blue from the waist down because the Bible told our parents to "spank" us?

 

How so?

I've not criticized their fervor- just their knowledge of the Scripture and their arrogance for refusing to consider how wrong they are.

Are we supposed to be benevolent towards Pharisees? Is that the example Jesus left us?

Catholics don't deny those things either.

Those are not the ONLY things worth fighting over.

That's just not true.

They think you are not right with God if you read the NIV, let your wife and daughters wear pants and go to the theater.

Not in most cases. I've pinned them down before and said, "Where is this in the Bible?" They could not answer.

And if they DO provide proof texts they abuse those verses and take them out of context which is a WORSE crime than their Phariseeism.

What is it that I have condemned that needs to be retracted, in your opinion?

Galatians 5:22-25 does not contradict the myriad of other passages that teach that people who hinder the cause of Christ are to be vehemently resisted.

A common error people make with passages that speak about gentleness in our dealings with people (which is what I presume you intend to convey from the fruit of the Spirit passage) is they try to make them universal when they are not.

These same folks will try to force passages that teach we should be fiercely condemnatory to NOT be universal. They say such passages have only certain contexts. This is proof that they are cherry picking.

The fact of the matter is that both types of passages have certain contexts- the gentle ones and the ones that teach to be fierce.

We don't get to pick the type that suits us and make it universal and then relegate the other to limited contexts.

That is a dishonest handling of Scripture.

There are times to be gentle and there are times it would be absolute SIN to be gentle.

We need to come to understand this abundantly clear biblical fact.

 

You seem to be saying you will accept the IFB doctrinal errors over the errors of the Charismatics, kind of a lesser of two evils thing.

 

Salty

Why, as a member of a SBC church, did you start this thread, and then abandon it? You have given no comment whatsoever, nor any opinion. I am not condemning you for starting, but I have to wonder what you hoped to prove. Just curious.

 

The problem of this type of church transcends denomination. There are SBC churches that act in that manner. The point is, a local NT church, regardless of which type of Baptist it is, and are preaching against long hair for men, short hair for women, dancing, gambling, smoking, TV, movies, King James only, and other such ridiculous issues that have no foundation in leading a Christian life, is not a NT church at all, but a center of Pharisee activity. They miss the whole point of being a Christian. No doubt they spend more time preaching this nonsense than spreading the Gospel.

 

Time for a comment

SN...as an SBC member that was brought up spiritually among IFB churches I will say...and I admit that this is STRICTLY my opinion...that, depending on how you interpret the scriptures, you can find some Biblical justification for preaching against some,if not all, of the things on your list if not directly, then by some principles that can be derived from scripture.....in my opinion. The question is...how many of the things listed above can truly be done TO THE GLORY OF GOD??? That is the real question we should be evaluating things by. Now...with that said I would suggest to you and to all that would listen that many of the things on that list would fall away from our lives without anyone needing to preach against them IF...and that is a big IF.. we would HONESTY seek to die DAILY to our flesh and its desires as we ask God to humble us and fill us with His Spirit (and His "fruits")on a daily basis. Most, if not all of those things would be inconsistent with living a holy, surrendered, sanctified and consecrated life. The problem is (and I am just as guilty of it as anyone) that most are not willing to get that serious about surrendering to the Lordship of our Saviour. That is to our shame and sorrow in this life. I always wonder just how many we might actually reach with the Gospel if THEY COULD REALLY SEE CHRIST IN US! Just sayin'.:tear:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

I've been trying stay off this thread, but you are really going overboard here. The fact is (unrealized by so many modern Christians) that 100 years ago almost all evangelical Christians believed in and preached some kind of personal separation similar to what you are listing here. I could give quotes to prove this from the student handbook of Wheaton College in the early 20th century (and probably any other evangelical school of the day), the sermons of famed evangelist R. A. Torrey, and many other sources.

To give an example, you have just condemned almost all of the early SBC missionaries to Japan. I'm currently reading Southern Baptist Missions in Japan, by F. Calvin Parker. In a 1920 WMS meeting in Japan, the ladies passed resolutions on "standing for patriotism, supporting prohibition, maintaining Sabbath observance," the last of which even fundamentalists don't practice anymore. Again, there was a huge controversy among the missionaries and nationals over allowing Sunday sports at their college (p. 92). Again, in 1931 some missionaries proposed renting a mission-owned house to an English family. The SBC executive committee rejected this because the man smoked a pipe and the wife had been seen around her own house not wearing stockings (pp. 102-103).

They were also anti-ecumenical, much like fundamentalism today. In 1914, "The Southern Baptist Convention meanwhile looked askance at such interdenominational cooperation" (p. 61).

I suggest before being so condemnatory, you should have studied church history. You are consigning virtually all of 19th century and early 20th century evangelicals to "Pharasaism," not even true NT churches. That is simply wrong.

 

Here are the rules from the first Wheaton College handbook of 1886. My, what terrible hypocrites and Pharisees they were in those days.

Wheaton College’s first rules in the 1860 catalog:​

http://recollections.liblog.wheaton.edu/2009/10/27/355/

THE FOLLOWING THINGS ARE POSITIVELY DISALLOWED, VIZ.:
■ Generally, all offensive, disorderly or indecent conduct
■ propagating infidel principles
■ profaning the Sabbath
■ profane or obscene language or behavior
■ playing billiards and like games
■ using intoxicating liquors or tobacco
■ disorder in rooms
■ disorder in or about the buildings, especially at nights
■ injuring college property
■ a careless use of fire
■ throwing water, dirt, or other offensive things from the windows
■ joining any secret society or entering the marriage relation while a member of the College

The deportment of the sexes towards each other will he particularly regarded by the Faculty, and any student whose conduct shall be, in the judgment of the Faculty, either foolish or improper, will be promptly separated from the institution, if admonition fails to correct it. In short everything is forbidden which will hinder, and everything required, which, we think, will help students in the great object for which they assemble here, which is improvement of mind, morals and heart.

The Faculty will exercise a parental and moral oversight of the character and conduct of the students, each officer having power to suspend disorderly students until next Faculty meeting. The students are required to be present at all College Exercises; to treat their officers with respect, and fellow-students with decorum; to attend church on the Sabbath; and not to leave town; or be out at night; or be out of their rooms in study hours; or absent from examinations without permission.

 

Then there is that terrible Pharisee R. A. Torrey. Never mind the hundreds of thousands saved through his ministry and his influence in the founding of BIOLA and Moody Bible Institute. The man was terrible. Here are some quotes.

"Take as an illustration of questions that are constantly coming up, the matter of theater-going, dancing and the use of tobacco. Many who are indulging in these things will ask you triumphantly if you speak against them, “Does the Bible say, ‘Thou shalt not go to the theater’?” “Does the Bible say, ‘Thou shalt not dance’?” “Does the Bible say, ‘Thou shalt not smoke’?” That is not the question. The question is, Is our heavenly Father well pleased when He sees one of His children in the theater, at the dance, or smoking? That is a question for each to decide for himself, prayerfully, seeking light from the Holy Spirit. “Where is the harm in these things?” many ask. It is aside from our purpose to go into the general question but beyond a doubt there is great harm in many a case; they rob our prayers of power" (How to Pray, pp. 40-41; Chicago: Moody Press, nd.).

"Then there is the increasing disregard for the Lord’s Day. It is fast becoming a day of worldly pleasure, instead of a day of holy service. The Sunday newspaper with its inane twaddle and filthy scandal takes the place of the bible; and visiting and golf and bicycle, the place of the Sunday school and church service.

"Christians mingle with the world in all forms of questionable amusements. The young man or young woman who does not believe in dancing with its rank immodesties, in the card table with its drift toward gambling, and in the theater with its ever increasing appeal to lewdness, is counted an old fogey" (How to Pray, p. 104).

"This immorality is found in the theater. The theater at its best is bad enough, but now the “Sapphos,” and the “Degenerates,” and all the unspeakable vile accessories of the stage rule the day, and the women who debauch themselves by appearing in such plays are defended in the newspapers and welcomed by supposedly respectable people.

"Much of our literature is rotten, but decent people will read books as bad as Trilby because it is the rage. Art is oftentimes a mere covering for shameless indecency. Women are induced to cast modesty to the winds that the artist may perfect his art and defile his morals" (How to Pray, p. 106).

 

You know, I used to admire Hudson Taylor (1932-1935) as a tremendous and innovative missionary and missionary statesman. And I used to think SBC Greek scholar A. T. Robertson (1863-1934) was not only one of the greatest ever in his field, but a wonderful Christian. But thanks to this thread I now know that both of these men were lousy Christian, because they both believed in personal separation of the Christian from the things of the world.

Taylor in a letter from Swatow, China to his sister on June 9, 1856:

“There is one thing I would especially warn you against…one of the greatest curses I believe of the present day—the practice of novel-reading. If you value your mind and soul, avoid it as you would a dangerous serpent. I cannot tell you what I would give to be able to forget certain novels I have read and to efface their influence from my memory. And I firmly believe, though some would deny it, …that no Christian ever did or ever will read them without injury, …very serious injury too, if the habit is indulged in. It is like opium-smoking, and begats a craving for more that must be supplied. Better books are neglected, and no one can estimate the mischief that results. Few, I believe, could honestly ask God’s blessing upon the reading of a novel, and few would venture to assert that they read them to the glory of God…. The only safety is in avoiding them as one of Satan’s most subtle snares.”

Taylor, Howard, Dr. and Mrs. Hudson Taylor in Early Years: The Growth of a Soul. Littleton, CO: OMF Books, 1996 reprint of 1911 edition.

Robertson on Phil. 4:8-9--

"Christian ideals, old-fashioned and familiar words not necessarily from any philosophic list of moral excellencies Stoic or otherwise. Without these no ideals can exist. They are pertinent now when so much filth is flaunted before the world in books, magazines and moving-pictures under the name of realism (the slime of the gutter and the cesspool)" (Word Pictures, accessed through PowerBible CD software).

 

On the other hand, the modern New Evangelical ideas of complete freedom, no rules, standards are Pharisaical, that has produced a wonderful crop of young people, hasn't it? Yes sir, we've come a long way.

"80% of unmarried evangelicals between the ages of 18 and 29 have had sex outside of marriage. That’s 4 out of 5."

"64% percent have had sex within the last year."

"These single Christians are getting pregnant – 30 percent of unmarried evangelicals have been pregnant or gotten someone pregnant."

“Thirty-two percent of all unplanned pregnancies among evangelicals end in abortion.”

(National Association of Evangelicals Spring 2012 “Insight” Newsletter, "Behind Closed Doors: Evangelicals are Having Sex...and Abortions,” p. 2. See this article at: http://www.nae.net/resources/nae-newsletter.)

 

p. 114, Annual of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1926:

 

In this thread we have personal testimony to abuse in IFBx churches. So far Don is the only poster who actually ACKNOWLEDGES this and offers a SOLUTION, which was to start a list.

I do not see any any IFB here who want to face the issue of abuse. If the abuse did not exist, and if it were handled correctly and according to scripture, individuals who have experienced and witnessed such abuse would not NEED to make entire webpages dedicated to the issue.

Two of us posters here have already testified that the abuse in IFBx churches DOES exist. In typical IFB fashion, the replies mock, cast doubt on, and/or IGNORE this fact. NONE offers a solution, and one even seems to think we should shut up and slink away quietly to join another such church instead of being a "tattletale."

Wow. Where is the love, the understanding, the concern for the individual in the OP who has been wounded by an abusive church? Where is the acknowledgement and encouragement that other IFB churches are trying to overcome this bad image? Where is the warning to others to take heed, lest they fall, too?

Nope. What we have is more lists of standards and rules and more judging. This is really, really sad.

 

The above post is another bunch of bull, no offense. You conveniently miss all the posts that would call the lie to your assertions. Now who is sticking their head in the sand? People have said, that if this is true (and we have no way of knowing, btw), then of course we would be sympathetic. And that if it did happen in our church, of course we would handle it. I even said that a case of abuse happened in our church family and the leadership handled it without covering it up. I guess you conveniently missed all these posts, congrats. You seem to have an ax to grind, and make everyone responsble for your fallacies. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

 

Bad things happen to people in chuches. David committed adultery, then murder. Abraham lied about his wife twice. Jonah got drunk and his son uncovered his nakedness. We are sinful people. No one is denying that, nor approving of anything ANY Christian does in ANY church. But don't come here saying that all IFB churches have this problem, or most of them, or most of the ones you know, because I won't believe it as my experience has been the exact opposite. I could start an OP about atrocities that have happened in the SBC, The Methodist Church, you name it, but that would not be right.

Let me say loud and clear for Alphabet Soup, NNE CONDONES ABUSE, NOWHERE, NO HOW. I have someone in my family who has been abused, not in church, but by a family member. I am trying to give her all the support I can. I know this to be true, that is the difference here. I know not any of you, how truthful you are, no offense, nor you I. Personally I wonder about people that want advice concerning something this serious from people that don't even know them.

That being said, if I went to a church like the OP presented, I would have left a long time before imo. If I knew of churches like that in my area, where abuses were taking place, I would warn others. But I would not condemn all churches of that type, no more than I would condemn all dentists for the ones that have hurt me by denying more painkiller. I made sure I went to a dentist that was about comfort, not getting done. But back to the point I made about getting advice from other Christians that don't know you that well: the family member that I am trying to prayerfull and spiritually support that has been abused has gotten some terrible advise from people that call themselves Christians, and do not know nor care about her situation. They tried to put the blame on her to a certain extent and wanted her to stay in a relationship because God hates all divorce. Everyone has an opinion and they all stink. Give me what sayeth the Lord, and the power of the Holy Spirit to apply it to my life.