Where is the IFB Sytematic Theology?

[Don]

Because people do not like to be told that what they preach is wrong. And because they are not used to being told that- this is because so few will do what God commanded them to do in this age of tolerance and acceptance.

It's that simple.

Being right biblically both doctrinally and methodologically is a lot more important to me than whether or not I am accepted.

This ain't about you being accepted; it's about what you say being accepted. As has been pointed out to you many, many times, people aren't getting the message because they can't get past the delivery.

Wesley said, "Law to the proud- grace to the humble." That's the biblical pattern.

When I say, "I think you are dead wrong on this and I wish you'd reconsider," and they say, "You may be right. Let me tell you why I think the way I think and you critique it," that's humility. We address that kind of attitude with grace.

When they say, "I don't NEED any body to help me interpret the Bible- not YOU, not the Historic Christian Church- not anybody!! God speaks to me!"

That is arrogance and it ought to be condemned- not coddled, like you would have Christians do.

Um...would you please point to a single post where I've agreed with, or promoted, "coddling"?

And you ought to point out where you've done much demolition yourself- because there is a HECK of a lot of it you are supposed to be doing on this forum.

Should be easy to find; just look for any posts where I've debated against the "calvinism is the only way to go" point of view. I've also posted, in times past, against the charismatic viewpoint.

When you build before you demolish what is there- you are simply building a good house on a terrible foundation- and your effort is wasted.

That is also what you see in the Gospels and epistles and prophets as well.

You really, really, really ought to pause and consider that, Don. You really should.

So?

Where is being negative condemned in Scripture?

The prophets were a negative bunch, weren't they?

The Apostles were, too.

And Jesus was forever saying, "Your thinking is dead wrong on this."

That's what I am doing on bb. And it is what God commands you to do, too.

This idea that building is good and demolition is not as good is cultural- not biblical. It is a fad in this tolerance obsessed culture in which you and I were raised.

This has subconsciously driven the way you think about this. And it has done the same to most of us in this culture.

People who are willing to stop and question that thinking and submit it to biblical scrutiny, imo, will leave it for the glory of God.

Luke, is there any possibility that you'll go back and read your own words with an open mind? Trying to view what you've said from someone else's viewpoint?

You remind me of the guy who continues to beat the dog until it whimpers in the corner, and only approaches humans with its tail tucked between its legs. Just keep bashing away, and demolishing, until there's no resistance left.

If that's your method of choice, well, I've given you my opinion on your methods. I'll continue "demolishing" bad theology, like pentacostalism and 7th day adventism, with the gifts and talents God has given me.

 

[Luke2427]

This ain't about you being accepted; it's about what you say being accepted. As has been pointed out to you many, many times, people aren't getting the message because they can't get past the delivery.


Um...would you please point to a single post where I've agreed with, or promoted, "coddling"?


Should be easy to find; just look for any posts where I've debated against the "calvinism is the only way to go" point of view. I've also posted, in times past, against the charismatic viewpoint.


Luke, is there any possibility that you'll go back and read your own words with an open mind? Trying to view what you've said from someone else's viewpoint?

You remind me of the guy who continues to beat the dog until it whimpers in the corner, and only approaches humans with its tail tucked between its legs. Just keep bashing away, and demolishing, until there's no resistance left.

If that's your method of choice, well, I've given you my opinion on your methods. I'll continue "demolishing" bad theology, like pentacostalism and 7th day adventism, with the gifts and talents God has given me.

You're wrong, Don.

I've proven it and you can't see it.

You don't have the prophets, Christ, the Apostles or MOST of the heroes of the Faith to back you- in fact their methodology contradicts what you promote- but you don't care.

And for the record, I'm not having any trouble persuading persuadable people- I've baptized 50 in the last five years.

You're wrong, Don.

You'd have me be sweet to proud people- and that is not biblical.

You'd have me be gracious in my handling of heresy. I think that is sin.

You are consumed with pragmatism- and ironically- it doesn't WORK.

 

[Don]

You're wrong, Don.

I've proven it and you can't see it.

You don't have the prophets, Christ, the Apostles or MOST of the heroes of the Faith to back you- in fact their methodology contradicts what you promote- but you don't care.

And for the record, I'm not having any trouble persuading persuadable people- I've baptized 50 in the last five years.

You're wrong, Don.

You'd have me be sweet to proud people- and that is not biblical.

You'd have me be gracious in my handling of heresy. I think that is sin.

You are consumed with pragmatism- and ironically- it doesn't WORK.

You mean, doesn't work for you. There are many of us who have just as many successes as you, with different methods. And that, my friend, is where I do have scripture on my side; because, as I've attempted to point out to you before, but you're too proud to realize it, scripture clearly indicates that if we are to minister, we do it as of the gifts that God has given us, that Christ may be glorified; whether it be the gifts of helps, healing, teaching, or others. If we need to be harsh, we be harsh; if we need to be sweet, we be sweet. As Paul said, I am all things to all men, that all may be won to Christ. As the Old Testament tells us, to everything there is a season. I commend those that are harsh, and I commend those that are sweet, because in the very same scripture that says we are each given different gifts, it also says the different gifts work together for the same reason. To imply that "all" the apostles, or even "MOST" of the church fathers, did things the exact same way, is to deny the fact that we are all given different gifts, and scripturally ordered to use those different gifts as they have been given to us.

So you go on saying that we should all do it the same way, but be ready for people to continue to challenge you on it, because scripture contradicts that position.

There. Said my piece. Backed it up with Scripture. Highly doubt that Luke will accept anything I've said, because he sees things only one way. Done. Next subject?

 

[Luke2427]

You mean, doesn't work for you. There are many of us who have just as many successes as you, with different methods. And that, my friend, is where I do have scripture on my side; because, as I've attempted to point out to you before, but you're too proud to realize it, scripture clearly indicates that if we are to minister, we do it as of the gifts that God has given us, that Christ may be glorified; whether it be the gifts of helps, healing, teaching, or others. If we need to be harsh, we be harsh; if we need to be sweet, we be sweet. As Paul said, I am all things to all men, that all may be won to Christ. As the Old Testament tells us, to everything there is a season. I commend those that are harsh, and I commend those that are sweet, because in the very same scripture that says we are each given different gifts, it also says the different gifts work together for the same reason. To imply that "all" the apostles, or even "MOST" of the church fathers, did things the exact same way, is to deny the fact that we are all given different gifts, and scripturally ordered to use those different gifts as they have been given to us.

I agree with a lot of this.

But the way we deal with darkness has nothing to do with gifts, Don.

Whether yours is the gift of helps or the gift of governments or teaching- you are to REPROVE the unfrutiful works of darkness.

What you are to do with darkness is the same as what I am to do with darkness and it is the same thing that every other Christian in history is to do with darkness.

Now, one who is not yet able to reprove darkness due to his maturity level or whatever can wisely choose not to deal with darkness at all until he is able.


But what NONE OF US can do- NONE OF US- NOT A SINGLE ONE OF US- NOT YOU, NOT ME, NOT MOTHER THERESA, NOT BILLY GRAHAM, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF US- is speak sweetly concerning that which GOD HATES.

To do so is evil- EVERY SINGLE TIME.

We can be sweet as we speak to the person in darkness- but we cannot be sweet as we speak about the darkness.

And we should not even continue to speak sweetly to the person who is in darkness if that person is proud and arrogant about the darkness they embrace.

Then we must rebuke the person as much as we rebuke the darkness they embrace.

So you go on saying that we should all do it the same way, but be ready for people to continue to challenge you on it, because scripture contradicts that position.

As I have clearly explained- this is simply not so.

Scripture, NO WHERE, says that if you have the gifts of helps then you can opt out of calling darkness by it's proper name.

NO WHERE. As I have clearly established, regardless of your gifting, if you are going to address darkness- you must REPROVE it- you must DEMOLISH it.

THAT is what the Bible says.

Now it is up to you whether or not you will accept the Word of God on the matter, but it is very clear.

There. Said my piece. Backed it up with Scripture.

But you didn't. You just thought you did. You purported things from your texts that they simply do not say.

That is not backing it up with Scripture- it just is not.

 

[Don]

Against my better judgment....

Luke, I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you. There is no one way to reprove evil. Where do the verses I referenced come into play? Because God created a special ability in you that's different than what He created in the rest of us. He created the woman next to me with a much sweeter spirit, who will tell people that they're doing wrong, who will reprove the works of evil, but doesn't come off as mean-spirited in the process. That's who God made her.

The reason I once asked you about whether you thought you were the head, or an eye, or the hand -- because each will reprove evil in the way that God made them, and none of them can say that they're better than the other, or that the other should do it their way.

You keep bringing up history; all of the people you mention as references all reproved evil. But can you definitively say they all did it exactly the same way?

No one said you're wrong, Luke; all they've said is, you don't have to be a jerk about it.

Or maybe you do, because God made you that way. But the rest of us don't, because God didn't make us that way.

There. Can't make it any clearer. Maybe someone else can.

 

[Rippon]

Against my better judgment....

Luke, I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you. There is no one way to reprove evil. Where do the verses I referenced come into play? Because God created a special ability in you that's different than what He created in the rest of us. He created the woman next to me with a much sweeter spirit, who will tell people that they're doing wrong, who will reprove the works of evil, but doesn't come off as mean-spirited in the process. That's who God made her.

The reason I once asked you about whether you thought you were the head, or an eye, or the hand -- because each will reprove evil in the way that God made them, and none of them can say that they're better than the other, or that the other should do it their way.

You keep bringing up history; all of the people you mention as references all reproved evil. But can you definitively say they all did it exactly the same way?

No one said you're wrong, Luke; all they've said is, you don't have to be a ___ about it.

Or maybe you do, because God made you that way. But the rest of us don't, because God didn't make us that way.

There. Can't make it any clearer. Maybe someone else can.

Don,I am in agreement with you if that matters.

 

[Luke2427]

Against my better judgment....

Luke, I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you. There is no one way to reprove evil. Where do the verses I referenced come into play? Because God created a special ability in you that's different than what He created in the rest of us. He created the woman next to me with a much sweeter spirit, who will tell people that they're doing wrong, who will reprove the works of evil, but doesn't come off as mean-spirited in the process. That's who God made her.

The reason I once asked you about whether you thought you were the head, or an eye, or the hand -- because each will reprove evil in the way that God made them, and none of them can say that they're better than the other, or that the other should do it their way.

You keep bringing up history; all of the people you mention as references all reproved evil. But can you definitively say they all did it exactly the same way?

No one said you're wrong, Luke; all they've said is, you don't have to be a jerk about it.

Or maybe you do, because God made you that way. But the rest of us don't, because God didn't make us that way.

There. Can't make it any clearer. Maybe someone else can.

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

The word reprove (elegchō) :

1) to convict, refute, confute

a) generally with a suggestion of shame of the person convicted

b) by conviction to bring to the light, to expose

2) to find fault with, correct

a) by word

1) to reprehend severely, chide, admonish, reprove

2) to call to account, show one his fault, demand an explanation

b) by deed

1) to chasten, to punish

The underlined phrases provide definitions which best match the natural reading of the text in context.

II Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Casting down (kathaireō)
1) to take down

a) without the notion of violence: to detach from the cross, one crucified

b) with the use of force: to throw down, cast down

2) to pull down, demolish

a) the subtle reasonings (of opponents) likened to a fortress, i.e. to refute, to destroy

The underlined definitions best match the natural reading. Most translators have recognized this. The NIV for example uses the word "demolish".

Galatians 2:11- But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

withstood (anthistēmi)
1) to set one's self against, to withstand, resist, oppose

2) to set against



Don, regardless of nature and giftings God has told us how to approach darkness.

You don't get to opt out.
You don't get to opt out OF approaching darkness.
And you don't get to opt out of the WAY you are supposed to approach darkness.

There's no sweet way to kill a snake.

 

[JesusFan]

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

The word reprove (elegchō) :

1) to convict, refute, confute

a) generally with a suggestion of shame of the person convicted

b) by conviction to bring to the light, to expose

2) to find fault with, correct

a) by word

1) to reprehend severely, chide, admonish, reprove

2) to call to account, show one his fault, demand an explanation

b) by deed

1) to chasten, to punish

The underlined phrases provide definitions which best match the natural reading of the text in context.

II Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Casting down (kathaireō)
1) to take down

a) without the notion of violence: to detach from the cross, one crucified

b) with the use of force: to throw down, cast down

2) to pull down, demolish

a) the subtle reasonings (of opponents) likened to a fortress, i.e. to refute, to destroy

The underlined definitions best match the natural reading. Most translators have recognized this. The NIV for example uses the word "demolish".

Galatians 2:11- But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

withstood (anthistēmi)
1) to set one's self against, to withstand, resist, oppose

2) to set against



Don, regardless of nature and giftings God has told us how to approach darkness.

You don't get to opt out.
You don't get to opt out OF approaching darkness.
And you don't get to opt out of the WAY you are supposed to approach darkness.

There's no sweet way to kill a snake.

Think that main thing that I see regarding this discussion topic is that we have to make sure that we are "attacking" others based upon coressential Christian doctrines that are misintepreted in a heretical fashion, NOT based upon preferences/convictions, or areas can disagree on, such as Modes baptism/second coming etc!

 

[seekingthetruth]

Basically, Luke is the only one here that is 100% doctrinally correct. And everyone that disagrees with him is in darkness and subject to Luke's rebuke. He has been commanded by the scriptures to attack everyone that doesn't agree with him until they submit to his beliefs.

And he can prove it with scripture. So what's the problem? Shouldn't we all be like Luke?

John

 

[dcorbett]

My point was that we baptists should NOT be tracing back to Apostles nor early Church as being where we all started at, as the Church was Just "Christian" untill the official formation of RCC...

And my point is: We trace our core beliefs back to the N.T. church - the roots of the baptist distinctives came from the N.T. church, NOT FROM ROME!!

There were real Christians all along, getting burned, fed to the lions, being persecuted, but the real church continued, despite ROME.

 

[JesusFan]

And my point is: We trace our core beliefs back to the N.T. church - the roots of the baptist distinctives came from the N.T. church, NOT FROM ROME!!

There were real Christians all along, getting burned, fed to the lions, being persecuted, but the real church continued, despite ROME.

we can prove our roots as CHRISTIANS do go all the way back to to the Apostles, but were known as Christians, as baptists as a distinctive sub group within Church started up much later...

Christian church for centuries, than formal organized RCC, with "real" christianity as sub groups, and than after reformation formal known protestants, including all we baptists!

 

[Robert Snow]

Basically, Luke is the only one here that is 100% doctrinally correct. And everyone that disagrees with him is in darkness and subject to Luke's rebuke. He has been commanded by the scriptures to attack everyone that doesn't agree with him until they submit to his beliefs.

And he can prove it with scripture. So what's the problem? Shouldn't we all be like Luke?

John

Luke2427 just traded in IFB KJVO for CalvinismO. He has the same spirit and it shows in every post. Having come out of extreme IFB KJVO myself I understand. Some of these people are not happy unless they make others angry and uncomfortable. It gives them a feeling of being superior, although they deny this. They love to mention that the godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution, but they fail to realize they are not being persecuted for Christ, but for their prideful, unscriptural approach to others.

I remember going to bible conferences where everyone there was IFB and KJVO. Yet, seldom could two pastors discuss anything without getting into an argument over which one was the most separated and therefore more godly. It usually ended up in some storming out and going home.

One time a IFB pastor and his only deacon stepped out in the front of the church after the morning service and had a fist fight in front of God and everyone. I believe Luke2427 would fit right in to these types of people and this type of behavior.

 

[glfredrick]

Actually, in this thead, Luke2427 raised some valid and interesting questions that most who consider themselves insiders in the IFB movement cannot seem to address.

It is not the questions, nor Luke2427 that is the problem, but rather a theology that is build on something other than what it purports at face value.

Point for Luke2427 in this round. :thumbsup:

Additionally, we should consider the fact that a non-Doctrines of Grace perspective was never the earliest nor the majority view at any time in church history, except (perhaps) our own, right now, when men who should be students of the Scriptures and of church history turn instead to tradition. Peter, who wrote of this (I believe) in his 2nd epistle, was right.

2Pet 2:10, 19-21 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones,:19 They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. :20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.

Especially, God's authority, which Peter held as preemminant in his doctrine, replaced by the promise of human freedom...

 

[seekingthetruth]

Luke2427 just traded in IFB KJVO for CalvinismO. He has the same spirit and it shows in every post. Having come out of extreme IFB KJVO myself I understand. Some of these people are not happy unless they make others angry and uncomfortable. It gives them a feeling of being superior, although they deny this. They love to mention that the godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution, but they fail to realize they are not being persecuted for Christ, but for their prideful, unscriptural approach to others.

I remember going to bible conferences where everyone there was IFB and KJVO. Yet, seldom could two pastors discuss anything without getting into an argument over which one was the most separated and therefore more godly. It usually ended up in some storming out and going home.

One time a IFB pastor and his only deacon stepped out in the front of the church after the morning service and had a fist fight in front of God and everyone. I believe Luke2427 would fit right in to these types of people and this type of behavior.

I agree with you. He condemns IFB for being dogmatic and tyrantical, but he is worse than any IFB preacher I have ever seen.

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

Actually, in this thead, Luke2427 raised some valid and interesting questions that most who consider themselves insiders in the IFB movement cannot seem to address.

It is not the questions, nor Luke2427 that is the problem, but rather a theology that is build on something other than what it purports at face value.

Point for Luke2427 in this round. :thumbsup:

Every camp has it's doctrines that they have adopted. Even Calvinism has adopted doctrines from other religions, like RCC for instance. If IFB pastors agree with a doctrine from another camp should they reject it anyway because it wasn't their original idea? Of course not.

Everybody adopts some doctrines and rejects others. Basically, in my IFB church, we don't follow any creed or confession. We don't have a church covenent. Our beliefs are those passed down and evolving for hundreds of years. Along the way, light has been shed where it wasn't before and therefore doctrines have been added or dropped. But the basic Baptist doctrine of saved by Grace, and believer's baptism has endured for hundreds of years.

Luke has picked a fight here that is non-existent, so how can he win a round when there is no fight in the first place?

And how can any IFB respond to the ridiculous questions he has asked? All he has done is used some twisted logic in order to try to show how much smarter he thinks he is than the average IFB.

This whole thread is just a sad attempt by a hater to bash IFB.

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

Actually, in this thead, Luke2427 raised some valid and interesting questions that most who consider themselves insiders in the IFB movement cannot seem to address.

It is not the questions, nor Luke2427 that is the problem, but rather a theology that is build on something other than what it purports at face value.

Point for Luke2427 in this round. :thumbsup:

Additionally, we should consider the fact that a non-Doctrines of Grace perspective was never the earliest nor the majority view at any time in church history, except (perhaps) our own, right now, when men who should be students of the Scriptures and of church history turn instead to tradition. Peter, who wrote of this (I believe) in his 2nd epistle, was right.



Especially, God's authority, which Peter held as preemminant in his doctrine, replaced by the promise of human freedom...

Is that supposed to prove to me that DoG is biblical?

John

 

[Luke2427]

And my point is: We trace our core beliefs back to the N.T. church - the roots of the baptist distinctives came from the N.T. church, NOT FROM ROME!!

No you don't. And whoever told you you did lied to you.

Do you believe in the Trinity?

Do you call the godhead the Trinity?

If you do, you got that doctrine from people who were not baptists- by ANY means. Yes, the doctrine is TAUGHT in Scripture, but people who were not baptists worked it out from the Scripture for you- and you believe in their interpretation of it.

You call the godhead the same thing they called it- because you got it from them.

And that's just one of innumerable doctrines you got from people who are not baptists.

Baptists do not go all the way back to the NT.

There were real Christians all along, getting burned, fed to the lions, being persecuted, but the real church continued, despite ROME.

What BAPTIST was ever fed to a lion???

 

[seekingthetruth]

Let me add that the only doctrine that my church and Reformed churches don't have in common is 4 points of Calvinism. All the rest is the same.

Where did the DoG churches get the rest of their theology?

Same place we did?????

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

Baptists do not go all the way back to the NT.

Here's what the Calvinist Spurgeon had to say about it

Spurgeon made the following statement on April 2, 1861 in a great Baptist conference hosted by the Metropolitan Tabernacle.

"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men."


If you don't believe what Spurgeon said here, then how can you believe any of his theology?

Luke, I would think that Spurgeon had studied this much more in depth than, and was way more knowledgeable than you.

John

 

[Luke2427]

If you don't believe what Spurgeon said here, then how can you believe any of his theology?

Is this a real question?

You can't be serious, right?

How can I believe ANY of Spurgeon's theology if I don't believe this one remark?

You really need a response to this question?

Is it your contention that one must believe every statement a man speaks if he believes ANYTHING else the man says?????

Madness...