Fundamentalist Baptists crossing the Line?

[DHK]

Its not hearsay, thats for sure. I have experienced it in the Pentecostal church, not our own, but another and it divided a church. We also know of one example at a IFB in Canada from what our friends who told us happened at their church.

Now the truth comes out.
You have experienced it in a Pentecostal Church, not an IFB Church, so all of what you have said is slander and hearsay. You don't know what you are talking about. In reality you are talking about the Pentecostal Church and only assume that some of the same things take place in IFB churches.

What is your purpose for being here anyway?
Have you read the rules?
Do you know what a troll is?

 

[shinninglight]

" only assume that some of the same things take place in IFB churches."

I don't assume. It did happen at an IFB in Canada, our friends attend the church and still do. They saw it happen . What don't you understand.

 

[DHK]

" only assume that some of the same things take place in IFB churches."

I don't assume. It did happen at an IFB in Canada, our friends attend the church and still do. They saw it happen . What don't you understand.

I understand what you just told me--a second hand source. You did not witness it. It is a one time event. It is hearsay. You are not a credible source and have not done your homework.

Again I ask you: Do you know what a troll is?

 

[donnA]

Based on whats happening in the world today, it appears that the root cause of a large part of the worlds troubles is fundamentalsim run amok. Fundamental Islam in my books is a cult.

big difference between islam and christianity, I haven't seen any christians flying airplanes into buildings lately have you?

 

[donnA]

Again I ask you: Do you know what a troll is?

OoohhhOoohh I do I do, pick me pick me!
I think we need a troll alert button.

 

[Johnv]

big difference between islam and christianity, I haven't seen any christians flying airplanes into buildings lately have you?

The issue of trolling aside, there might be some aspect of the plank/speck analogy there. There are unfortunately sad examples of extreme fundamentalist in Christianity as well. We've got our own issue with the "Got hates fags" crowd (I think we all know the type), that get more attention than they deserve, and unfortunately give the rest of us a black eye. We really should work to combat our own transgressions before callign out the transgressions of others.

 

[donnA]

The issue of trolling aside, there might be some aspect of the plank/speck analogy there. There are unfortunately sad examples of extreme fundamentalist in Christianity as well. We've got our own issue with the "Got hates fags" crowd (I think we all know the type), that get more attention than they deserve, and unfortunately give the rest of us a black eye. We really should work to combat our own transgressions before callign out the transgressions of others.

here we usually find these people are pentecostal, non denom(charismatic) or church of God, or some sort of country church (some baptist, some methodist, and a near by presbyterian)where breathing is a sin.
So you've actually seen chirsitans fly an airplane into a building full of people, I mean that is the post of mine you quoted that I posted when christiasn were compared to muslims.

 

[DHK]

The issue of trolling aside, there might be some aspect of the plank/speck analogy there. There are unfortunately sad examples of extreme fundamentalist in Christianity as well. We've got our own issue with the "Got hates fags" crowd (I think we all know the type), that get more attention than they deserve, and unfortunately give the rest of us a black eye. We really should work to combat our own transgressions before callign out the transgressions of others.

Perhaps John. But if you read this thread carefully, it ought to be renamed:

IFB Churches Bashed by lone Pentecostal (with axe to grind)

 

[Johnv]

Granted, which is why I made the comment "The issue of trolling aside..."

 

[shinninglight]

Well I wouldn't say an axe to grind, far from it. Like I said before we have dear friends who attend an IBF in ontario canada. We have attended on occasion but not recently. But one time sticks out when the pastor(who recently committed suicide-a sin against god) started attacking catholics with quite a venom and then after the service one member of the church outside was bashing gays with pure hatred. I overheard him say that he would have no problem "shooting one" if given the opportunity. We stopped visiting our friends at their place of worship. Fundamentalism in any form can be very dangerous.

 

[DHK]

Well I wouldn't say an axe to grind, far from it. Like I said before we have dear friends who attend an IBF in ontario canada. We have attended on occasion but not recently. But one time sticks out when the pastor(who recently committed suicide-a sin against god) started attacking catholics with quite a venom and then after the service one member of the church outside was bashing gays with pure hatred. I overheard him say that he would have no problem "shooting one" if given the opportunity. We stopped visiting our friends at their place of worship. Fundamentalism in any form can be very dangerous.

Do you believe in:
The virgin birth of Christ;
The substitutionary atonement of Christ;
The visible bodily resurrection of Christ;
The lost condition of all mankind
The inerrancy of Scripture
Salvation is a free gift of God accepted by faith alone.
The visible ascension of Christ
The visible return of Christ a second time.

These are the historic fundamentals of the faith.
Are you a fundamentalist?
Do you believe in the fundamentals of the faith?

You really don't know what fundamentalism is, do you?
I think you are the "dangerous" one here.

 

[DHK]

Well I wouldn't say an axe to grind, far from it. Like I said before we have dear friends who attend an IBF in ontario canada. We have attended on occasion but not recently. But one time sticks out when the pastor(who recently committed suicide-a sin against god) started attacking catholics with quite a venom and then after the service one member of the church outside was bashing gays with pure hatred. I overheard him say that he would have no problem "shooting one" if given the opportunity. We stopped visiting our friends at their place of worship. Fundamentalism in any form can be very dangerous.

I don't know of anyone at Faithway who would shoot anyone. Have you ever heard of hyperbole. We hate the sin; but love the sinner. We have been in the church on more than one occasion and had dinner with the pastor in question. I had met him numerous times and was well acquainted with him. All you go by is hearsay.

Lack of prayer and Bible study is a sin against God; so is hearsay and gossip.
I point out the error of Catholics on a regular basis. I am a former Catholic. It is a devilish religion that is sending people straight to Hell. People need to know the truth about religions that send people to Hell, by preaching a works-based false gospel. I commend Faithway for doing so.

You know not what you are talking of. You came here to stir up trouble.

Do you know what a troll is?

 

[DHK]

Proverbs 6:16-19 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

hmmm

 

[Johnv]

But one time sticks out when the pastor(who recently committed suicide-a sin against god)...

Whoa, there, I admit to not knowing the circumstances, but suicide is not an across the board "sin against God". I had a close friend of mine commit suicide several years ago, a result of him suffering from 30 years of bipolar disorder. His situation was not a sin.

... started attacking catholics with quite a venom and then after the service one member of the church outside was bashing gays with pure hatred.

That's obviously a problem, but I don't think this is an attitude that is characteristic of fundamentslist Christians as a whole. I grant that it's more common in fundamentslist churches than mainline conservaive churches, but certainly not to the point of being synonymous with Christian fundamentlists. I think it best in this case to let a person associated with the curch in question speak to that. I have a problem with "i overheard", because that's usually hearsay. We shouldn't take what we overhear as gospel, because we usually don't kow the context with which it's delivered.

Fundamentalism in any form can be very dangerous.

Yes, it "can" be dangerous, but that doesn't mean it is dangerous as a rule.

 

[Eric B]

Before a person joins a church they agree to the constitution and statement of faith. Most, of course, will always agree to the statement of faith. But if you don't want to agree to the constitution, where these things have been agreed upon by the pastor and the church, then go and find a church where you will be comfortable. It is as easy as that. A previous church that I was at had dress length written right into the constitution. You can't argue with it. One must agree to the constitution before becoming a member. There is no appeal. The choice is yours before you become a member!

A person, for example, in direct disobedience to the Word of God, (according to the constitution which the agreed to; according to the definition of modesty which they agreed to) is in rebellion. Their heart attitude is one of rebellion. When one continues to live in rebellion what conclusion would you draw no matter what "rules" are being flaunted? As a parent if you set standards for your child. If your child continues to disobey you day after day, is that child right with God or not? It doesn't matter what the standard is. It matters what the heart attitude is to what the person agreed to in the first place.

The thing is, that constitution cannot define the Word of God. They cannot determine what is rebellion towards God; only God can. If they can determine those things, then all the "rebels" have every reason to trash it as manmade nonsense, for if some human church consititution from the last hundred or so years determines what God's Word says, then it is shown to be manmade. If it's not manmade, then we have to confess that God has not inspired organized religion constitutions. (Beyond the ancient nation of Israel, and that is over and done with anyway).

As for them agreeing to the constitution, then we would of course ask why they agreed to it. In many cases, they did not agree to it, but were born into it or led into it by parents, or perhaps in some cases, new leadership decided to become more strict. Or perhaps, the "rebels" originally agreed to it, but then came to see that it was wrong. Like if someone joined an actual "cult", but then came to the truth. They originally agreed to the "constitution".

And to get back to another part of the point (which you have totally ignored), it extends way beyond accepting their consititution. One can accept the constitution of the contemporary church next door, and then still have to be accused of "disobedience" as if they were under the first church, insisting it's constitution is the Biblical one.

A ridiculous statement to make. Of course they don't, and never have.

Then it's not a ridiculous statement; it was an acknowledgment of something true made in passing (to show, among other things, how they use it as a technicality that allows them to practically violate the principle we all claim to uphold).

You seem to know nothing of living a holy life and everything about enjoying a worldly life which the Bible condemns.

People can say far less than this to you, and you would accuse them of slander!
Where did I even say anything about "worldly living" vs "godly living"? We're discussing Churches' interpretations of what godly living is, in the first place; and you seem to be saying that whatever their consititution decides is OK; just as long as it is conservative enough on one hand, but is not works-salvation on the other. Nowhere did I say that worldly living is OK.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
--That "line" that you are talking about? It is what the Bible defines as the world, isn't it?

"The line" in the immediate context was works-salvation. Then, I made reference to a common criticism they make of contemporary Christians as to "trying to come as close to the line and get away with as much as possible instead of focusing on pleasing God". And some are definitely like that, and the judgment would then be right. However, the issue here is one of liberty, and those same IFB types will throw that charge at modern Christians and deny liberty over music and Bible translations, yet when some of their rules are under fire; they then appeal to "liberty", and try to get as close to the opposite "line" of legalism as they can, rather than asking if it pleases God.

I still do not agree with inter-racial dating to this day. But it is not on Biblical grounds. It is for social reason; cultural reasons.

1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

Great! I have always had the same leaning (but if it had happened; then the only Biblical limitation would have been that it would have been a believer).

However, the school claimed it was a Biblical rule (using the same scripture). In the past, they said whoever opposed it, oposed God; not that it was simply "not expedient".

Is it cult-like to live a holy life?
Is it cult-like to live separate from the world?

Is it prideful or self-aggrandizing to live humbly before the Lord thy God and walk as close to him as possible in as holy a manner as possible, being as separate from the world as possible.

I think you better take a better look at the issues before judging others.

It is cultlike when the group by fiat decides what holiness, separation, humility before God, walking with God, etc. is.
For again; only God can decide those things. Any man tries to, they are by definition playing God, and this is one of the prime definitions of a cult. (And it is definitely prideful and self-aggrandizing).

We still have the ongoing debates here over the sabbath. Some say that that is required to live a holy life and walk before God. Anyone who doesn't is living in rebellion (regardless of whether they agreed to the constitution of a Church that believes that). Do you agree with that?

Other groups add all sorts of rules, and I did include the translation issue, which I have seen you argue against. The KJV advocates say you are rebelling against God's Word. Is that true just because they say so?
So again, you are relativizing by saying that they are justified simply because they claim their rules are maintaining holiness. Their rules are either wrong or right. No 'right in their own church, but wrong to me'.

Also, regarding the issue of IFB vs Pentecostal; it has long been known that there are Pentecostal Baptist churches. In the US inner city community, especially among older people, they are assumed to be synonymous, and many remember growing up in these "Baptist" churches that "had the Holy Ghost" as they called it, or were "holy rollers". And the large majority of these churches were independent. So it is possible that the OP had an experience with a church like this.

 

[shinninglight]

DHK............ There is no hearsay or gossip here. Its fact. What don't you understand. Everything I saw and witnessed is fact because I was there, you wern't, whoever you are. Maybe you were there at the same time I heard all this. But the fact is I heard it. The fact is also that this pastor did commit suicide, is it not so. It appears everyone is in agreement, at least at the church and what our friends, who are members there say. I think if you go to the Faithway website the funeral speakers even acknowledge this. Lets not go into this further because the other things I'm hearing of.........I don't even want to get into. Lets just end this now.

 

[DHK]

DHK............ There is no hearsay or gossip here. Its fact. What don't you understand. Everything I saw and witnessed is fact because I was there, you wern't, whoever you are. Maybe you were there at the same time I heard all this. But the fact is I heard it. The fact is also that this pastor did commit suicide, is it not so. It appears everyone is in agreement, at least at the church and what our friends, who are members there say. I think if you go to the Faithway website the funeral speakers even acknowledge this. Lets not go into this further because the other things I'm hearing of.........I don't even want to get into. Lets just end this now.

1. By your own testimony you have never been in an IFB church.
2. You have heard of an unfortunate incident that happened in one church--a suicide.
3. Therefore, by your own logic, every pastor of every IFB church will commit suicide. Correct?
4. Again, by your own logic, in every IFB church there will be those that will threaten to shoot homosexuals.

You have only heard what goes on in one IFB church. You are not an expert. Yet from what you have heard you started a thread called:

Fundamentalists Baptists Crossing the Line?

You have never been in a Fundamentalist Church!!!!

But you pose to be an expert in IFB matters. Quit playing the charlatan.
Faithway is not representative of all IFB churches. Because one pastor committed suicide does not mean all pastors will commit suicide, and yet this is your sweeping generalization, by the title of your thread.

Again I ask, Do you know what a troll is?

 

[shinninglight]

DHK, stop posting lies. Its so obvious. You do the fundamental church more harm. I'm done with this thread. I don't have time for communicating with uneducated people-even if they are christian brothers.

 

[DHK]

The thing is, that constitution cannot define the Word of God. They cannot determine what is rebellion towards God; only God can. If they can determine those things, then all the "rebels" have every reason to trash it as manmade nonsense, for if some human church consititution from the last hundred or so years determines what God's Word says, then it is shown to be manmade. If it's not manmade, then we have to confess that God has not inspired organized religion constitutions. (Beyond the ancient nation of Israel, and that is over and done with anyway).

One of the most important of all Baptist Distinctives is that of Soul Liberty. It is the right to interpret the Bible as one believes to be true. We as Baptists have that freedom. John Bunyan spent 12 years in prison fighting for that very principle. He would not be licensed by the state church. He believed that he should be given the freedom to preach what he believed was God-given truth; not state-given truth.

The constitution is based on the truth of the Word of God. You have it backwards. There must be a defining document that defines what the church is and why it is different than others. For example the constitution defines how it is different than Charismatic Churches and for good reason. There is much confusion these days in that area. We separate ourselves from the Charismatic movement and have good Biblical reasons to do so. We separate ourselves from the ecumenical movement with good Biblical reasons. The constitution spells this out. It also gives plenty of Scripture to back up its position. If you think you can refute it, then you are welcome to challenge it, or simply go somewhere else where you would be more comfortable (the more diplomatic thing to do).

It seems to me that Samuel could determine what was rebellion when he met Saul.

1 Samuel 15:22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

--Saul's continual disobedience showed his heart of rebellion.
It is not something only known to God.
There is the fruit of the Spirit and the works of the flesh.

As for them agreeing to the constitution, then we would of course ask why they agreed to it. In many cases, they did not agree to it, but were born into it or led into it by parents,

What??? Do you believe in baptismal regeneration?
One is not born into a Christian family. There is no such thing. Where are you getting this from. Even in our church, just because a child is saved and baptized they do not automatically become a voting member. There is an age limit. They must be 18.

or perhaps in some cases, new leadership decided to become more strict. Or perhaps, the "rebels" originally agreed to it, but then came to see that it was wrong. Like if someone joined an actual "cult", but then came to the truth. They originally agreed to the "constitution".

Often a new leadership will either accept the constitution as is; or accept the pastorate on the basis that changes can be made in the constitution. It is up to the church.

And to get back to another part of the point (which you have totally ignored), it extends way beyond accepting their consititution. One can accept the constitution of the contemporary church next door, and then still have to be accused of "disobedience" as if they were under the first church, insisting it's constitution is the Biblical one.

You either accept one or the other. You can't be a member of two churches. I am not sure what you are talking about. If the Lord has directed you to a specific church for specific reasons then you will be in harmony with the teachings of that church will you not?

People can say far less than this to you, and you would accuse them of slander!
Where did I even say anything about "worldly living" vs "godly living"? We're discussing Churches' interpretations of what godly living is, in the first place; and you seem to be saying that whatever their consititution decides is OK; just as long as it is conservative enough on one hand, but is not works-salvation on the other. Nowhere did I say that worldly living is OK.

Whether it be a church or a person it doesn't matter. A person dresses a certain way, acts a certain way because in their heart they genuinely believe they are honoring God and living a more holy life. Yet they can't win because folks (like many on this board) will call them legalists--when it is not true. It is drawing nigh unto God; and staying as far from the world as possible. But you can't see that. Perhaps you have never been exposed to that teaching. (and would never want to be).

"The line" in the immediate context was works-salvation. Then, I made reference to a common criticism they make of contemporary Christians as to "trying to come as close to the line and get away with as much as possible instead of focusing on pleasing God". And some are definitely like that, and the judgment would then be right. However, the issue here is one of liberty, and those same IFB types will throw that charge at modern Christians and deny liberty over music and Bible translations, yet when some of their rules are under fire; they then appeal to "liberty", and try to get as close to the opposite "line" of legalism as they can, rather than asking if it pleases God.

Perhaps you don't know what legalism is. We never associate standards with salvation. Read the Book of Galatians. A legalist, like the Judaizers, associated the keeping of the law with their salvation. I don't know of anyone who does that. We associate it with a life of holiness and that is all.

It is cultlike when the group by fiat decides what holiness, separation, humility before God, walking with God, etc. is.
For again; only God can decide those things. Any man tries to, they are by definition playing God, and this is one of the prime definitions of a cult.

When the Bible has many of those things clearly defined, then it is written in the constitution without hesitation. The Presbyterians have a constitution also. They firmly believe in infant baptism. The Bible Presbyterians are just as evangelical as we are. Will you castigate them in the same way just because their conviction is different. Remember it is soul liberty. If you don't like it, find another church. No one is forcing you to join it.

We still have the ongoing debates here over the sabbath. Some say that that is required to live a holy life and walk before God. Anyone who doesn't is living in rebellion (regardless of whether they agreed to the constitution of a Church that believes that). Do you agree with that?

It is not a matter if I agree with it or not. There are some that do, and I give them that liberty. If I don't agree I will find a church that I do agree with.

Other groups add all sorts of rules, and I did include the translation issue, which I have seen you argue against. The KJV advocates say you are rebelling against God's Word. Is that true just because they say so?

Actually I would call myself KJV-preferred, and would argue in favor of the KJV more than against it. But again, if you don't agree with the church's stand then find another one.

So again, you are relativizing by saying that they are justified simply because they claim their rules are maintaining holiness. Their rules are either wrong or right. No 'right in their own church, but wrong to me'.

No, I believe that which is written in our constitution is right, and is based on the Word of God. If you can find where it is at fault you are welcome to do so. But if you just don't agree with it for whatever reason, then just go and find another church. There is such a thing as soul liberty.

 

[DHK]

DHK, stop posting lies. Its so obvious. You do the fundamental church more harm. I'm done with this thread. I don't have time for communicating with uneducated people-even if they are christian brothers.

What lie have I posted?