I'm taking the spiritual lead in my family

[TCassidy]

I am a member of an SBC church for a reason.

I am too.

I'm not KJVO

I'm not either.

or KJVP

Mildly, but use other versions for daily reading and study.

there are a host of other IFB cultural and church practice issues that I cannot accept.

Could you elaborate for me?

I attend a SBC church but am still IFB. SBC churches are independent, fundamental, and baptist.

 

[StefanM]

I still don't see your reasoning. What is it about the autonomy of the local congregation (I) and the fundamentals of the faith (F) and the baptist distinctives (B) that you disagree with?

The associated issues like the KJVO and KJVP positions, separation, attire, cultural expectations, often excessive pastoral control, etc.

And the F is typically more fundamentalist than just the fundamentals of the faith. I'm an evangelical who believes in the fundamentals, but I'm not a fundamentalist.

Now if it were the equivalent of an SBC church, then I'd have no issue. But these other issues are dealbreakers for me.

The translation issue is major for me. I'm not going to have my children in a church that discourages them from reading a translation they can understand. And I believe I have the right to use a modern translation. I even mainly use the NKJV, but it's important for me to have my liberty to read and use in church a modern translation.

 

[StefanM]

I am too.

I'm not either.

Mildly, but use other versions for daily reading and study.

Could you elaborate for me?

I attend a SBC church but am still IFB. SBC churches are independent, fundamental, and baptist.

The other issues I addressed in my other post.

But I wouldn't call SBC churches by those adjectives. They are autonomous but cooperative, evangelical but not fundamentalist (IMO, the F in IFB is more indicative of fundamentalism than the fundamentals, which all evangelical churches believe).

KJVP is fine individually, and as long as I am not derided for using my NKJV, I'm fine. Preaching from the KJV is fine. KJVO is absolutely a non-negotiable. I refuse.

 

[TCassidy]

The associated issues like the KJVO

Agree.

KJVP positions

Okay by me.

separation

Rubber word. Even most IFBs can't agree on what it means.

attire

Makes no difference to me.

cultural expectations

Not sure what you mean by that.

excessive pastoral control

You can find that in any denomination and even in the non/inter-denominational churches.

I'm an evangelical who believes in the fundamentals, but I'm not a fundamentalist.

That seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.

The translation issue is major for me. I'm not going to have my children in a church that discourages them from reading a translation they can understand. And I believe I have the right to use a modern translation. I even mainly use the NKJV, but it's important for me to have my liberty to read and use in church a modern translation.

I am more NKJV preferred than KJV preferred. But that is a result of my Byzantine Priority preference.

 

[StefanM]

I will put it this way--I'd consider a non-KJVO church, depending on the individual church, as long as my NKJV is accepted as valid and not a second-class Bible.

I'll back off my more absolute statement. You've convinced me.

 

[Salty]

The other issues I addressed in my other post.

But I wouldn't call SBC churches by those adjectives. They are autonomous but cooperative,

Virtually all IFB support missionaries thur independent mission boards - therefor they are cooperative just like the SBC.
The big difference is that instead of a missionary visiting over 500 churches in a span of 3 or 4 years to raise enough support to get to the mission field -as opposed to a SBC missionary - when approved - they are able to get right to the field.
Evan -ask you wife this - would your wife go to 15 separate grocers stores to the get the best price on different foodsuff, or does she look at the ads and consider the best store overall?
BTW, the SBC mission board is very selective - they will not appoint any divorced or tounge speaking missionaries.

evangelical but not fundamentalist (IMO, the F in IFB is more indicative of fundamentalism than the fundamentals, which all evangelical churches believe).

There are five points of Fundamentalism:

• Biblical inspiration and the infallibility of scripture as a result of this
• Virgin birth of Jesus
• Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
• Bodily resurrection of Jesus
• Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

KJVP is fine individually, and as long as I am not derided for using my NKJV, I'm fine. Preaching from the KJV is fine. KJVO is absolutely a non-negotiable. I refuse.

Many IFB churches are NOT KJO

One other thing - anything above and beyond the fie points listed above - ie standards of dress, no alcoholic, no movies, no TV, refusing to fellowship with non-IBF, let alone non-Baptists, ect...
I would consider ultra-fundamentalists. In addition - I would add that IFB churches , as well as SBC, are like snowflakes - no two are alike.
Evan, your wife could go to another IFB, and find that is very different from her current church.

It appears that you have a serious situation here. And part of it is the C vs A. A good friend of mine once expalined that C-A is like a railroad track - right by you - there is a great distance - but as you look way down - the tracks seem to merge .

I'm thinking that this is one thing you may need to consider compromising.

I sincerely trust, that your home will soon be of one mind.

 

[TCassidy]

The big difference is that instead of a missionary visiting over 500 churches in a span of 3 or 4 years to raise enough support to get to the mission field -as opposed to a SBC missionary - when approved - they are able to get right to the field.

The is one thing the SBC does better than any others. They get missionaries to the field very quickly. And they provide a good retirement after a life time of service. You just gotta admire that.

 

[Sapper Woody]

IMO, it is ok to compromise to a higher standard, but never to a lower. For example, I compromise and only listen to traditional music at my church, although I listen to contemporary. It would wrong for me to try to get someone of the strictest standard to compromise to listen to my music.

The same goes for dress, and alcohol. It is ok to compromise up, but not down.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[Salty]

IMO, it is ok to compromise to a higher standard, but never to a lower. For example, I compromise and only listen to traditional music at my church, although I listen to contemporary. It would wrong for me to try to get someone of the strictest standard to compromise to listen to my music.

The same goes for dress, and alcohol. It is ok to compromise up, but not down.

dont know if I fully agree.
Is that standard a Biblical standard or a church "preference"

Now, I prefer to see a lady in a dress, at church, but I can not find any scripture requiring a dress
Now, I prefer to see a gentleman wear a coat and tie to church, but I can't find any scripture requiring that.

 

[Sapper Woody]

dont know if I fully agree.
Is that standard a Biblical standard or a church "preference"

Now, I prefer to see a lady in a dress, at church, but I can not find any scripture requiring a dress
Now, I prefer to see a gentleman wear a coat and tie to church, but I can't find any scripture requiring that.

The thing is, Salty, who's to say it it's biblical? I say it's biblically ok for women to wear pants. My church says biblically it's not. Obviously, it someone holds the standard, they believe it's biblical.

Paul says to not cause the weaker brother to offend his conscience. To me, its pretty cut and dried.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[Salty]

The thing is, Salty, who's to say it it's biblical? I say it's biblically ok for women to wear pants. My church says biblically it's not. Obviously, it someone holds the standard, they believe it's biblical.

Paul says to not cause the weaker brother to offend his conscience. To me, its pretty cut and dried.

and that conscience needs to be based on actual doctrine.

Now, on one hand, I would not go into a church and demand they allow ushers without ties to serve.
but, I would have no problem with informing a person he could attend our church without a tie.

 

[Sapper Woody]

and that conscience needs to be based on actual doctrine.

Now, on one hand, I would not go into a church and demand they allow ushers without ties to serve.
but, I would have no problem with informing a person he could attend our church without a tie.

Brother, I think you're talking more about preferences where I'm speaking more of standards. With the dress standard, my wife wears pants. But our church believes that biblically a woman should not wear pants. So, my wife doesn't wear pants on the church grounds or at church functions. We compromise our lower standard in deference to the higher.

In music, I listen to contemporary music. But our church believes it is wrong. So, at church and around church members I defer to their standard. To play contemporary music around them, knowing their standard, would be sin.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[StefanM]

Virtually all IFB support missionaries thur independent mission boards - therefor they are cooperative just like the SBC.
The big difference is that instead of a missionary visiting over 500 churches in a span of 3 or 4 years to raise enough support to get to the mission field -as opposed to a SBC missionary - when approved - they are able to get right to the field.
Evan -ask you wife this - would your wife go to 15 separate grocers stores to the get the best price on different foodsuff, or does she look at the ads and consider the best store overall?
BTW, the SBC mission board is very selective - they will not appoint any divorced or tounge speaking missionaries.


There are five points of Fundamentalism:

• Biblical inspiration and the infallibility of scripture as a result of this
• Virgin birth of Jesus
• Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
• Bodily resurrection of Jesus
• Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

Many IFB churches are NOT KJO

One other thing - anything above and beyond the fie points listed above - ie standards of dress, no alcoholic, no movies, no TV, refusing to fellowship with non-IBF, let alone non-Baptists, ect...
I would consider ultra-fundamentalists. In addition - I would add that IFB churches , as well as SBC, are like snowflakes - no two are alike.
Evan, your wife could go to another IFB, and find that is very different from her current church.

It appears that you have a serious situation here. And part of it is the C vs A. A good friend of mine once expalined that C-A is like a railroad track - right by you - there is a great distance - but as you look way down - the tracks seem to merge .

I'm thinking that this is one thing you may need to consider compromising.

I sincerely trust, that your home will soon be of one mind.

I think you confused my post with his. My statements are only hypothetical. If I had to leave my current church, I'd have 10+ SBC options within short driving distance. I'd have at least two non-denominational churches also.

And my wife and I are fully on board with going to our SBC church .

 

[JamesL]

]There are five points of Fundamentalism:

• Biblical inspiration and the infallibility of scripture as a result of this
• Virgin birth of Jesus
• Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
• Bodily resurrection of Jesus
• Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

those are fundamentals, not Fundamentalism.

Here's Fundamentalism:
We betta not catch you with anything other than KJV

We betta not catch you havin even a smidge of alcohol

We betta not catch you wearin a skirt that shows your whole knee

We betta not catch you in a pool hall

We betta not catch you in a dance club

We betta not catch you talkin bad about a deacon or the pastor

We betta not catch your grow'd up kids doin no sinnin'

From what I have seen, Fundamentalism = wacky, backward, legalist

It's almost the same as the difference between a charismatic and Charismatic. I agree with the first, but am repulsed by the other.

But as it relates to this thread, I would hold ny nose and attend with a wife. Especially if I made the horrendous mistake of marrying a Fundamentalist in the first place

 

[StefanM]

those are fundamentals, not Fundamentalism.

Here's Fundamentalism:
We betta not catch you with anything other than KJV

We betta not catch you havin even a smidge of alcohol

We betta not catch you wearin a skirt that shows your whole knee

We betta not catch you in a pool hall

We betta not catch you in a dance club

We betta not catch you talkin bad about a deacon or the pastor

We betta not catch your grow'd up kids doin no sinnin'

From what I have seen, Fundamentalism = wacky, backward, legalist

It's almost the same as the difference between a charismatic and Charismatic. I agree with the first, but am repulsed by the other.

But as it relates to this thread, I would hold ny nose and attend with a wife. Especially if I made the horrendous mistake of marrying a Fundamentalist in the first place

This is what I meant by Fundamentalism. If a church has these qualities, it's an absolute no for me. If it doesn't, then I would consider the church, if I were looking.

The fundamentals are good, but the "extras" are not.

 

[StefanM]

Brother, I think you're talking more about preferences where I'm speaking more of standards. With the dress standard, my wife wears pants. But our church believes that biblically a woman should not wear pants. So, my wife doesn't wear pants on the church grounds or at church functions. We compromise our lower standard in deference to the higher.

In music, I listen to contemporary music. But our church believes it is wrong. So, at church and around church members I defer to their standard. To play contemporary music around them, knowing their standard, would be sin.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

I must ask---why do you attend this church? You seem to have quite divergent views on Christian practice.

 

[JamesL]

This is what I meant by Fundamentalism. If a church has these qualities, it's an absolute no for me. If it doesn't, then I would consider the church, if I were looking.

The fundamentals are good, but the "extras" are not.

I could tell exactly what you were getting at. I've seen it numerous times from self-proclaimed Fundamentalists, even those who aren't IFB

 

[Baptist Believer]

Well since I enjoy having a Mike's here and there yes my conscience is violated.

While I don't think there's anything wrong with the use of alcohol in moderation, I do think there's something wrong with consuming alcohol if you are going to make it a point of contention as to what church to attend. Don't drink if it is going to affect your marriage!

If your wife agrees with her IFB's church's view on total abstinence from alcohol, then DON'T DRINK so as not to create conflict in your marriage. Your first obligation is to your wife, not your liberty.

I also feel bad in that I do not give to the church like I should. I do not desire to give my money to a IFB church.

Here's an idea. Start giving to the IFB church as you should and get involved in making it a better place. That doesn't mean going around telling everyone how bad things are, but instead being salt, light and gentle truth in their midst. Moreover, you will find that they have things that they can teach you!

I have been a member of a number of churches where I don't agree with every viewpoint espoused by the leadership (that's actually every church I've attended), but I have grown and flourished in each one - some obviously more than others.

You should attend a church to serve and be served. Unless it is a church that has totally rejected the gospel, then the people of God are there and you can love, support, and learn from them.

For the sake of your wife, you need to be like Jesus and give up your liberty for your wife. God will honor and bless you for doing so.

 

[JamesL]

I'm taking the lead. This means setting the example and.... not continuing to attend a IFB church in my area. ...

If she chooses to not come....

A dear lady at my church says this....
You can call yourself a leader if you want to - but if nobody's following, you're just taking a walk.

 

[StefanM]

While I don't think there's anything wrong with the use of alcohol in moderation, I do think there's something wrong with consuming alcohol if you are going to make it a point of contention as to what church to attend. Don't drink if it is going to affect your marriage!

If your wife agrees with her IFB's church's view on total abstinence from alcohol, then DON'T DRINK so as not to create conflict in your marriage. Your first obligation is to your wife, not your liberty.

I agree with this completely. It's not that big of a deal to give up occasionally drinking alcohol. I, too, think that alcohol in moderation is acceptable, but it's not worth a serious marital conflict.