Where is the IFB Sytematic Theology?

[seekingthetruth]

Anybody on bb who's been exposed to IFB much at all knows that this kind of backwards thinking is not isolated within the movement. There have been numerous people who have testified to their exposure to this kind of thinking within the IFB movement-numerous people. On this very thread there're people arguing for this very thing. I grant John that temple and Bob Jones are not this backwards.
But John's got his head in the sand if he doesn't realize that it occupies a large portion of IFB thinking.

So what John? You don't have to agree with us about church history but that doesn't change the gospel. As long as we preach the gospel to the lost what difference does it make to you what we believe about church history.

Having a difference of opinion about church history does not affect the preaching of the gospel one bit, so how can this silly argument of yours equate to "darkness" or "evil"?

You need to go and find some real evil to keep your self-righteous self busy.

John

 

[Luke2427]

How do you espouse an opinion on the history of the church as "doctrine'?

It is not doctrine. There is nothing biblical or unbiblical about it.

This is why I say that this thread is a joke. It starts off with a premise that one's belief in church history equates to doctrine.

Well, it doesn't. As far as church doctrine or Bible doctrine go, it is a non issue.

This is totally ridiculous, and the only intent here is to bash IFB.

John

Your denial of church history and your people's involvement in it brings into question every single doctrine you espouse.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Your denial of church history and your people's involvement in it brings into question every single doctrine you espouse.

I wasn't going to post in this thread, because I am not a historian, and don't know enough of the history of the Baptist faith to add to the conversation. However, I couldn't help but point out that, according to Luke (the quote I have here), he questions his own doctrines.

He said IFB borrowed (espouses) his doctrines, and that every single doctrine IFB espouses (the ones IFB borrowed from Luke) should be brought into question.

 

[Luke2427]

I wasn't going to post in this thread, because I am not a historian, and don't know enough of the history of the Baptist faith to add to the conversation. However, I couldn't help but point out that, according to Luke (the quote I have here), he questions his own doctrines.

He said IFB borrowed (espouses) his doctrines, and that every single doctrine IFB espouses (the ones IFB borrowed from Luke) should be brought into question.

That's not what I said.

 

[dcorbett]

And every time I talk about the early N.T. church or refer to Christians, you turn around and say something like "There's no mention of Baptists in any of that" but I never said Baptists were mentioned...I said the ROOTS of the Baptist distinctives came from the N.T. church, carried down through the REAL believers, the ones who denied the authority of Rome and onward.

The real believers who wouldn't worship the Pope and wouldn't baptize their babies. Like us! Yep, those kind of Christians have been there since Pentecost. THAT is our inheritance.

 

[Luke2427]

And every time I talk about the early N.T. church or refer to Christians, you turn around and say something like "There's no mention of Baptists in any of that" but I never said Baptists were mentioned...I said the ROOTS of the Baptist distinctives came from the N.T. church, carried down through the REAL believers, the ones who denied the authority of Rome and onward.

The real believers who wouldn't worship the Pope and wouldn't baptize their babies. Like us! Yep, those kind of Christians have been there since Pentecost. THAT is our inheritance.

No. They haven't. I would be willing to support that claim but since you don't feel the need to support yours- rather you just state them as if they have any meaning just because you say them- I won't bother.

 

[Robert Snow]

And every time I talk about the early N.T. church or refer to Christians, you turn around and say something like "There's no mention of Baptists in any of that" but I never said Baptists were mentioned...I said the ROOTS of the Baptist distinctives came from the N.T. church, carried down through the REAL believers, the ones who denied the authority of Rome and onward.

The real believers who wouldn't worship the Pope and wouldn't baptize their babies. Like us! Yep, those kind of Christians have been there since Pentecost. THAT is our inheritance.

Luke2427 just hates to be reminded that this great church history he looks to was filled with error, like infant baptism.

The Baptist church did not come out of the Reformation, it was there all along, all the way back to the Apostles. I'll take God's true church over reformation churches any day!

 

[Luke2427]

Luke2427 just hates to be reminded that this great church history he looks to was filled with error, like infant baptism.

The Baptist church did not come out of the Reformation, it was there all along, all the way back to the Apostles. I'll take God's true church over reformation churches any day!

While your at it you might as well feed your horse, winged Pegasus, pet your dog, Cereberus, and draw Excalibur against the Flying Spaghetti Monster perched on your roof.

 

[Sapper Woody]

That's not what I said.

It might not have been what you meant, but it is definitely what you said :laugh:

You said that IFB have espoused your doctrines. Then you said that all doctrines that IFB espoused should be brought under question because of their alleged misunderstanding of history.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Your denial of church history and your people's involvement in it brings into question every single doctrine you espouse.

Luke, it is YOU that wishes to bring into question every single doctrine of IFB, not anyone else's denial.

Church history is just your excuse.

Like Woody has said, most people don't know anything about church history, nor do they care. It is the Gospel of Jesus that matters.

Be honest, you hate IFB and will find any little insignificant issue to get a dig in on them.

I am firmly convinced now that your glorious church history is more important to you than the Gospel of Jesus, or else you would not blast true believer's over this silly and stupid superior stance of yours.

I bow to you as the Great All-knowing Historian.

Now, back to the Gospel.

AJ

 

[John of Japan]

As I've noted on other threads, some have geographical disconnect. Their IFBdom experience is limited to the Southern variety. I will grant, thanks to the Southern diaspora north of the Ohio River, the SV has taken root outside the Old South (e.g. FBC Hammond).

Very true, and there are some important differences between the original Northern and Southern brands that Luke doesn't have a clue about.

 

[John of Japan]

Anybody on bb who's been exposed to IFB much at all knows that this kind of backwards thinking is not isolated within the movement. There have been numerous people who have testified to their exposure to this kind of thinking within the IFB movement-numerous people. On this very thread there're people arguing for this very thing. I grant John that temple and Bob Jones are not this backwards.
But John's got his head in the sand if he doesn't realize that it occupies a large portion of IFB thinking.

Frankly, I think your knowledge of the IFB movement is minimal. I've preached in 100s over the years, and know the pastors of many others personally. We are supported by 45 churches, and this furlough I've already preached in a number of those as well as being a participant (didn't preach) in two large conferences with pastors and people from many different chuches. We stay in the homes of believers, we eat out with pastors, we have long talks with believers at our display table and elsewhere, etc.

So, me with my head in the sand? No, how about you claiming far more knowledge about my movement than you have. To give examples of your ignorance: Bob Jones? 4000 students nowadays (a little down) I was just told by a retired prof from there we ate dinner with. Maranatha? Almost 1000 students. Temple? No longer IFB, but 1000s of pastors in years past from there are IFB. Hardly minor influences in the movement. But you apparently think they are.

P. S. Are you ready now to attack Landmarkism in the SBC, the Primitive Baptists, the Missionary Baptists and the Freewill Baptists? If not, you have exposed your bias and bile against the IFB movement and it alone, in spite of your brag about facing down what you feel is evil whereever it occurs.

 

[InTheLight]

Wow. Just, wow.

<snip>

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

This message is hidden because Luke2427 is on your ignore list.

Everyone do yourself a favor and use the killfile feature. It will save you a lot of aggravation.

 

[matt wade]

This message is hidden because Luke2427 is on your ignore list.

Everyone do yourself a favor and use the killfile feature. It will save you a lot of aggravation.

Yeah everybody, let's just put everyone we disagree with on the ignore list. Then we can all come to this debate forum and sing kum-ba-yah with each other.

 

[InTheLight]

Yeah everybody, let's just put everyone we disagree with on the ignore list. Then we can all come to this debate forum and sing kum-ba-yah with each other.

It's not the disagreement, it's the tone and tenor of the way the person makes that disagreement with someone. That will get me to >plonk< someone.

 

[JesusFan]

And every time I talk about the early N.T. church or refer to Christians, you turn around and say something like "There's no mention of Baptists in any of that" but I never said Baptists were mentioned...I said the ROOTS of the Baptist distinctives came from the N.T. church, carried down through the REAL believers, the ones who denied the authority of Rome and onward.

The real believers who wouldn't worship the Pope and wouldn't baptize their babies. Like us! Yep, those kind of Christians have been there since Pentecost. THAT is our inheritance.

IF you want to say that they were "like" modern Baptists in their theology/views/practices etc that is fine, just as long do not say that they actually WERE called Baptists!

 

[seekingthetruth]

IF you want to say that they were "like" modern Baptists in their theology/views/practices etc that is fine, just as long do not say that they actually WERE called Baptists!

Jesusfan,

You have no idea what you are taliking about, you are just agreeing with Luke,

which makes you more stupid than he is.

John

 

[Luke2427]

Frankly, I think your knowledge of the IFB movement is minimal. I've preached in 100s over the years, and know the pastors of many others personally. We are supported by 45 churches, and this furlough I've already preached in a number of those as well as being a participant (didn't preach) in two large conferences with pastors and people from many different chuches. We stay in the homes of believers, we eat out with pastors, we have long talks with believers at our display table and elsewhere, etc.

So, me with my head in the sand? No, how about you claiming far more knowledge about my movement than you have. To give examples of your ignorance: Bob Jones? 4000 students nowadays (a little down) I was just told by a retired prof from there we ate dinner with. Maranatha? Almost 1000 students. Temple? No longer IFB, but 1000s of pastors in years past from there are IFB. Hardly minor influences in the movement. But you apparently think they are.

P. S. Are you ready now to attack Landmarkism in the SBC, the Primitive Baptists, the Missionary Baptists and the Freewill Baptists? If not, you have exposed your bias and bile against the IFB movement and it alone, in spite of your brag about facing down what you feel is evil whereever it occurs.

All you prove John, is that there are hundreds and hundreds of churches that may not be like what we're describing. What you have not proven is that they're not hundreds and hundreds and hundreds more that are like what we are describing.
I am not an IFB expert. I don't have to be an IFB expert to know that there are many many many churches that are very backwards and they're thinking in the IFB movement.
I have to be have old times of camp meetings and conferences where many of their churches get together and spout off this kind of stuff.
One example is the sword conference that was just tell that Joe Arthur's church in Georgia. It is a joke.
I have a friend who has left the IFB who who was a full-time IFB evangelist. He can testify that most of the churches that he preached in espouse this kind of backwards thinking that I'm condemning.
Perhaps videos that you have been raised and exposed to a certain segment of IFV that is a good segment. perhaps that has called you to be completely oblivious to this massive segment of IFB that is not like that in which you were raised and now minister.
But John there are numerous people here on this bb who know that there are many IFB who are like what I am describing. They know because they have seen it. Many of them have testified within the last 24 hours of being in IFB churches that are backwards like what I am describing. You might as well be trying to convince us that error does not exist.

 

[Don]

All you prove John, is that there are hundreds and hundreds of churches that may not be like what we're describing. What you have not proven is that they're not hundreds and hundreds and hundreds more that are like what we are describing.
I am not an IFB expert. I don't have to be an IFB expert to know that there are many many many churches that are very backwards and they're thinking in the IFB movement.
I have to be have old times of camp meetings and conferences where many of their churches get together and spout off this kind of stuff.
One example is the sword conference that was just tell that Joe Arthur's church in Georgia. It is a joke.
I have a friend who has left the IFB who who was a full-time IFB evangelist. He can testify that most of the churches that he preached in espouse this kind of backwards thinking that I'm condemning.
Perhaps videos that you have been raised and exposed to a certain segment of IFV that is a good segment. perhaps that has called you to be completely oblivious to this massive segment of IFB that is not like that in which you were raised and now minister.
But John there are numerous people here on this bb who know that there are many IFB who are like what I am describing. They know because they have seen it. Many of them have testified within the last 24 hours of being in IFB churches that are backwards like what I am describing. You might as well be trying to convince us that error does not exist.

Luke, your many grammatical errors, and improper sentence structure above...this is not your normal way of posting.

I pray that you had a bad night, and are simply tired. Otherwise, I would be tempted to ask you other questions to rule out a stroke, or something else serious. And yes, I'm being serious about this. When you see the way a person posts for a long time, and then you see a sudden, drastic change, it's cause for concern.

 

[Jerome]

there are many many many churches that are very backwards and they're thinking in the IFB movement.
I have to be have old times of camp meetings and conferences where many of their churches get together and spout off this kind of stuff.
One example is the sword conference that was just tell that Joe Arthur's church in Georgia.

Perhaps videos that you have been raised and exposed to a certain segment of IFV that is a good segment. perhaps that has called you to be completely. . .

backwards and they're thinking in the IFB movement?

I have to be have old times of camp meetings?

conference that was just tell that Joe's Arthur's church?

Perhaps videos that you have been raised and exposed to a certain segment of IFV that is a good segment?



What in the world?