Where is the IFB Sytematic Theology?

[seekingthetruth]

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

I mean this honestly.....have you been drinking?

John

 

[matt wade]

Rick Jr. got a hold of Dad's password and he dreams of striking down evil just like Dad.

 

[Luke2427]

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.

Thank you for your concern. Sincerely. What it is is that I am dictating what is on these posts via my iPhone 4S rather than typing it out and the iPhone 4S is not picking up every word just right. Plus I have never dictated before, so I do not quite have the hang of it yet.

 

[Don]

Thank you for your concern. Sincerely. What it is is that I am dictating what is on these posts via my iPhone 4S rather than typing it out and the iPhone 4S is not picking up every word just right. Plus I have never dictated before, so I do not quite have the hang of it yet.

Ah, the new Siri. Good luck with that. <grin> Glad to hear it's not something serious.

 

[matt wade]

I really think that before people use dictation through their iPhone 4S on this board that they should study and show themselves approved in order to do it.

In it's simplest form here is the argument: If you don't REALLY know how to do dictation you ought not use it.

(re: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=72786)

 

[Tom Bryant]

I really think that before people use dictation through their iPhone 4S on this board that they should study and show themselves approved in order to do it.

In it's simplest form here is the argument: If you don't REALLY know how to do dictation you ought not use it.

(re: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=72786)

Dude - you are cold... :tongue3:

 

[InTheLight]

I really think that before people use dictation through their iPhone 4S on this board that they should study and show themselves approved in order to do it.

In it's simplest form here is the argument: If you don't REALLY know how to do dictation you ought not use it.

(re: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=72786)

LIKED IT!!!

:laugh:

BTW, Google's voice recognition (or is it Android's?) works awesomely.

 

[Luke2427]

I really think that before people use dictation through their iPhone 4S on this board that they should study and show themselves approved in order to do it.

In it's simplest form here is the argument: If you don't REALLY know how to do dictation you ought not use it.

(re: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=72786)

What I think is unfortunately revealed here is a deficiency in ability to discern between that which has almost no importance at all and that which bears eternal consequences.

You'd better know what you're talking about before you launch ideas which pertain to the glory of God and souls of men.

The ability to mock this importance is not good.

 

[matt wade]

What I think is unfortunately revealed here is a deficiency in ability to discern between that which has almost no importance at all and that which bears eternal consequences.

You'd better know what you're talking about before you launch ideas which pertain to the glory of God and souls of men.

The ability to mock this importance is not good.

Lighten up Rick.

 

[seekingthetruth]

What I think is unfortunately revealed here is a deficiency in ability to discern between that which has almost no importance at all and that which bears eternal consequences.

You'd better know what you're talking about before you launch ideas which pertain to the glory of God and souls of men.

The ability to mock this importance is not good.

Are you kidding me?

And you think that my beliefs on church history really "pertain to the glory of God and the souls of men"?

Do you think that i am going to hell because I disagree with you on church history?

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

What I think is unfortunately revealed here is a deficiency in ability to discern between that which has almost no importance at all and that which bears eternal consequences.

You'd better know what you're talking about before you launch ideas which pertain to the glory of God and souls of men.

The ability to mock this importance is not good.

Do you think that YOU mocking your brothers in Christ that are IFB is a good thing?

John

 

[Luke2427]

Are you kidding me?

And you think that my beliefs on church history really "pertain to the glory of God and the souls of men"?

Do you think that i am going to hell because I disagree with you on church history?

John

That judgment is above my pay grade.

What I am saying is that how you influence people concerning matters of immense consequence deserves fear and trembling.

If I did not know how the body of Christ believed about some doctrinal issue for nearly two thousand years I wouldn't dare proclaim it for hundreds to see and thereby be influenced.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

The formal name for this theory\model of Baptist history is The Spiritual Kinship Theory.

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]

The formal name for this theory\model of Baptist history is The Spiritual Kinship Theory.

Are there Baptist groups who "officially" hold to that position?

As i had not heard of this view until now, but seems reasonable to me!

 

[Luke2427]

Are there Baptist groups who "officially" hold to that position?

As i had not heard of this view until now, but seems reasonable to me!

It is not reasonable because they claim that there is this group of people who were never in the catholic church who were only dunking believers all the way back to the nt. But these people never contributed anything. Yet they look to the historic church for everything they believe.
These baptists are trinitarian. But they didn't work that out. Read their theologies and they depend, not on this invisible line of baptist, but on the historic church for everything.

 

[seekingthetruth]

That judgment is above my pay grade.

What I am saying is that how you influence people concerning matters of immense consequence deserves fear and trembling.

If I did not know how the body of Christ believed about some doctrinal issue for nearly two thousand years I wouldn't dare proclaim it for hundreds to see and thereby be influenced.

If it is above your paygrade, then why do you condemn it?

You are a piece of work.

So, let's verify......You, Luke, has the mind of God, and you alone knows what is "doctrine that is in light" and "doctrine that is in darkness"

And in your doctrine that IFB is in "darkness" and in error. and is doomed to hell

You , Luke, has the mind of God and has the ability to condemn anybody that you disagree with, and they are going to HELL!

Do you really belive that people are going to hell because YOU dont' agree with what they believe about church history?

Do I have this right?

John

 

[Luke2427]

If it is above your paygrade, then why do you condemn it?

You are a piece of work.

So, let's verify......You, Luke, has the mind of God, and you alone knows what is "doctrine that is in light" and "doctrine that is in darkness"

And in your doctrine that IFB is in "darkness" and in error. and is doomed to hell

You , Luke, has the mind of God and has the ability to condemn anybody that you disagree with, and they are going to HELL!

Do you really belive that people are going to hell because YOU dont' agree with what they believe about church history?

Do I have this right?

John

I cannot respond to accusations against me and what I have said that are not even close to what I have said. Go back and actually quote me or paraphrase what I have actually said and I'll see what I can do.

 

[JesusFan]

It is not reasonable because they claim that there is this group of people who were never in the catholic church who were only dunking believers all the way back to the nt. But these people never contributed anything. Yet they look to the historic church for everything they believe.
These baptists are trinitarian. But they didn't work that out. Read their theologies and they depend, not on this invisible line of baptist, but on the historic church for everything.

to my understanding on this topic though is that there would be 2 seperate views here...

baptists viewing their spiritual roots back to Pentacost, as there was a "first baptist" church of jerusalem, and those who would hold that the "baptist" type theology was practiced by early Church!

First would say early Church was a formal Baptist, other that the first christian were NOT called that, just practiced that!

 

[John of Japan]

It is not reasonable because they claim that there is this group of people who were never in the catholic church who were only dunking believers all the way back to the nt. But these people never contributed anything. Yet they look to the historic church for everything they believe.

You seriously need to study early church history, not to mention the later centuries. Ever read Eusebius? The Apostolic Fathers? Heard of the Greek Orthodox Church which has immersed since the early centuries? The Nestorians, Paulicians, Waldensians, Huguenauts, etc., etc.?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Yeup, many of the Old Line Northern Baptists held it (B. Myron Cedarholm, Richard Weeks, M. James Hollowood). Though, the position (to the best of my knowledge) has never been adopted as "official" by any group.

The key is they knew full well that a "chain of links" couldn't be reliably proved back to Pentecost. They did however held

Matt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

to be literal. As they viewed the Church of Rome to be a false pretender, they held that through the ages God had a faithful remnant left. Some time the remnant could be seen above ground and sometimes it was hidden in a dark corner (at least to modern eyes). Further, they discounted the accounts of the faithful's enemies. By their lights, these enemies could do no less than accuse the faithful of every heresy the enemy could think of.

The men mentioned in the first paragraph would hold that the "chain link" theory smacked of the RCC\EOC claims.

Are there Baptist groups who "officially" hold to that position?

As i had not heard of this view until now, but seems reasonable to me!