IFB in darkness?

[nate]

Do they believe that these items are required for salvation?

No not at all, although I think it's more of "a be separate" issue for them!

 

[nate]

To be fair, BJU professors oppose KJVO teachings, and there is nothing in their campus rules about cosmetics or ear piercing. I'm not sure about the other things nowadays, but I doubt if they actively oppose them, though they have certain dress standards for on campus. (Women still wear pants in PE there, I believe.)

I'm sorry I didn't mean to insinuate BJU in any way endorsed any of the things I mentioned. In fact my Uncle (a pastor) graduated from there and ended up sending his son to PCC, if I recall correctly he had some disagreement with BJU.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm sorry I didn't mean to insinuate BJU in any way endorsed any of the things I mentioned. In fact my Uncle (a pastor) graduated from there and ended up sending his son to PCC, if I recall correctly he had some disagreement with BJU.

Ah, yes, PCC. Might have been something about Bible versions, since that appears to be the main bone of contention between the two schools. I don't really keep up on that dispute, though. My family has strong connections to Maranatha BBC in Wisconsin nowadays.

 

[John of Japan]

((((No shorts for men))))!?!?

Goodness, I LIVE in shorts during the summer.

I wouldn't be caught dead in shorts and it has nothing to do with IFB standards. I think male knees and legs are incredibly ugly!

That is extreme legalism. Almost hard core Muslim style legalism.

Oh, come now, it's hardly that. Any burnoose you see in an IFB church will be worn by a Muslim visitor.

And once again comes the silly charge that standards of personal separation are "legalism." This is a basic error in theology. IFBs never say that following these standards are necessary for salvation, and no one on the BB has ever given a quote from an IFB writer to prove that they do. Once more I'll post the theological definition of legalism by a leading SBC theologian in his systematic theology:

“Legalism is a slavish following of the laws in the belief that one thereby earns merit; it also entails a refusal to go beyond the formal or literal requirements of the law” (Christian Theology, 2nd ed., by Millard Erickson, p. 990).

 

[glfredrick]

I wouldn't be caught dead in shorts and it has nothing to do with IFB standards. I think male knees and legs are incredibly ugly!

Oh, come now, it's hardly that. Any burnoose you see in an IFB church will be worn by a Muslim visitor.

And once again comes the silly charge that standards of personal separation are "legalism." This is a basic error in theology. IFBs never say that following these standards are necessary for salvation, and no one on the BB has ever given a quote from an IFB writer to prove that they do. Once more I'll post the theological definition of legalism by a leading SBC theologian in his systematic theology:

Sounds like a reasonable explanation of some churches to me... :wavey:

 

[matt wade]

No not at all, although I think it's more of "a be separate" issue for them!

Then it isn't legalism.

 

[John of Japan]

Sounds like a reasonable explanation of some churches to me... :wavey:

There are always the exceptions.

 

[glfredrick]

There are always the exceptions.

I was being facetious...

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Some may claim that the extremist sect of the IFB's are not legalists because they do not preach works for salvation. I would contend that it is just as unScriptural & legalistic to teach that one has to conform & adhere to a set of rules to be "right with God", "in His will", or "blessed" by Him. Works for sanctification is just as heretical as works for salvation.

 

[John of Japan]

Some may claim that the extremist sect of the IFB's are not legalists because they do not preach works for salvation. I would contend that it is just as unScriptural legalistic to teach that one has to conform; adhere to a set of rules to be right with God in His will, or blessed by Him. Works for sanctification is just as heretical as works for salvation.

Then you are willing to force words to fit your own meanings. Therefore you are giving false witness.

 

[DHK]

Some may claim that the extremist sect of the IFB's are not legalists because they do not preach works for salvation. I would contend that it is just as unScriptural & legalistic to teach that one has to conform & adhere to a set of rules to be "right with God", "in His will", or "blessed" by Him. Works for sanctification is just as heretical as works for salvation.

I find it strange when people say these things and then go and conform themselves to very similar standards that their boss has set for them in the business they work in: business suit, tie, etc. They must conform to the expectations of the company they work for. Perhaps they haven't considered that Christ is their King and their Commander.

 

[matt wade]

Some may claim that the extremist sect of the IFB's are not legalists because they do not preach works for salvation. I would contend that it is just as unScriptural & legalistic to teach that one has to conform & adhere to a set of rules to be "right with God", "in His will", or "blessed" by Him. Works for sanctification is just as heretical as works for salvation.

Go watch Joel Osteen. He sounds right up your alley.

 

[Luke2427]

Go watch Joel Osteen. He sounds right up your alley.

What makes Joel Osteen so bad is that he is man centered rather than God centered.

Many IFB churches are no less man centered than Osteen making man the focus of their messages and songs and missions, etc...

Just because Osteen is more successful at being man centered than many IFB churches doesn't mean you ought to hate him for it.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Then you are willing to force words to fit your own meanings. Therefore you are giving false witness.

How am I giving false witness? I lived it for over twenty years.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

I find it strange when people say these things and then go and conform themselves to very similar standards that their boss has set for them in the business they work in: business suit, tie, etc. They must conform to the expectations of the company they work for. Perhaps they haven't considered that Christ is their King and their Commander.

The standards which those IFB's are imposing on others are not of God. Besides, it is a false argument to compare our spiritual relationship with God to being an employee of a company. I actually laughed when I read it. I follow God's standard & try not to add to it. Those who add to His Word don't believe that His standards are enough.


Concerning Joel Osteen, I actually watch him on occasion for his comedic value. I probably shouldn't since he is deceiving many. Speaking against legalistic fundamentalism is not Osteen-like. Christ spoke STRONGLY against the pharisees of His day.

 

[DHK]

What makes Joel Osteen so bad is that he is man centered rather than God centered.

Many IFB churches are no less man centered than Osteen making man the focus of their messages and songs and missions, etc...

Just because Osteen is more successful at being man centered than many IFB churches doesn't mean you ought to hate him for it.

That is pretty low of you Luke. I will make the same generalization for you.
Your church is named Unity...
The church in our city named Unity is specifically for homosexuals.
Therefore you have united yourself with homosexuals.
Or all churches with the name Unity are homosexual churches, to be more accurate.
Luke, that is the logic you are using. That is the type of broad generalizations you are making. All churches named Unity (like yours) are homosexual.

?All IFB churches are man-centered." yeah, right!

 

[Alive in Christ]

DHK....

I find it strange when people say these things and then go and conform themselves to very similar standards that their boss has set for them in the business they work in: business suit, tie, etc. They must conform to the expectations of the company they work for. Perhaps they haven't considered that Christ is their King and their Commander.

Ummmm....there is a HUGE difference between going to work and living out the christian life.

(Although the two sometimes intersect, such as when wittnessing at work.)

In the christian life we have the inner wittness of the Holy Spirit promting us, empowering us, guiding us, etc etc.

We have no "work spirit" that indwelles us the moment we walk through the door of our place of employment.

 

[DHK]

DHK....



Ummmm....there is a HUGE difference between going to work and living out the christian life.

(Although the two sometimes intersect, such as when wittnessing at work.)

In the christian life we have the inner wittness of the Holy Spirit promting us, empowering us, guiding us, etc etc.

We have no "work spirit" that indwelles us the moment we walk through the door of our place of employment.

Let me get this straight:
At church you have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, so it doesn't matter how you dress.
At work it matters how you dress. But there you don't have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit because you are no longer in church.

That ain't my kind of Christianity.
I am indwelt by the Holy Spirit no matter where I am, and from the day I was born again he has been changing me from the inside out.

 

[Luke2427]

That is pretty low of you Luke. I will make the same generalization for you.
Your church is named Unity...
The church in our city named Unity is specifically for homosexuals.
Therefore you have united yourself with homosexuals.
Or all churches with the name Unity are homosexual churches, to be more accurate.
Luke, that is the logic you are using. That is the type of broad generalizations you are making. All churches named Unity (like yours) are homosexual.

?All IFB churches are man-centered." yeah, right!

I didn't say "all".

Of course that doesn't matter. Facts really carry very little weight with you.

 

[Don]

I didn't say "all".

Of course that doesn't matter. Facts really carry very little weight with you.

Silly Luke; wordplay is for kids. :laugh:

Leave the word "all" out of DHK's post, and it still shows a problem with your post....