Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

PastorMatt

Where do we draw the line for IFB?

Recommended Posts

Sometimes I feel that non IFB saints, and Calvinists, and, A-millenialists, post their views on OLB just to antaganize us and get converts  to their agenda. They do not really want an honest discussion. We need a solid Statement of Faith. One of the reasons why some of the discussions degenerate into rancor, ill-feeling and dislike is that some folks that are in the forums are not true IFB and they do not want to be. They are leavening OLB with there non-biblical beliefs.

Also, I do think that you should consider someone joining OLB to state there church name. If they are not near a local IFB church than they need to give the name of the previous IFB church they sere a member of.

 

Alan,

 

I think that we deal with the trolls very well. I say let them come, there is always the chance that they will see some validity in the IFB stand for truth. After all, how can we stand for the truth if we never have an opportunity to preach it? I think it a good thing that we have visitors like this so that we can point out their errors and put forth the truth of the IFB position.​

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I would like to see the rule about 'KJV only' changed to 'KJV and previous

English versions of the 'proper' line of Bibles, such as Tyndale, Coverdale, Great, Bishops, and Geneva Bibles'. I believe it would deepen

our understanding of the text, and reveal some interesting discussions on real 'biblical' teachings. I will still be here whether or not that happens.

I know some will say it brings confusion into the realm, but I disagree, it will solidify what we truly believe.

That's not going to happen, Genevan...

Concerning the Scriptures:

We believe that every word of the scriptures was given by inspiration of God and that every word of of the scriptures has been preserved by his divine power from the tainting of man thus retaining their inspired character in its entirety.
We therefore hold the scriptures to be the foremost authority for faith and practice and reject every doctrine or teaching contrary to the teachings of the 66 books of scripture as nOT of God and false. We believe that the revelation of scripture was completed with the book of Revelation. Online baptist holds that the King James Bible is Gods preserved word for the English speaking peoples and does nOT permit using OTher versions on the forum. We reject the teaching of the double inspiration of theKJV and hold that the KJV retains the original divine inspiration of the scriptures through faithful translation and Gods divine preservation rather than being re-inspired in the English language in 1611.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

First United Holy Christian Congregational Assembly of Latter Day BaptiPresbyMetholic Adventists, Inc.

​Ha! If the liberals had their way it would also include...

First United Holy Christian Congregational Assembly of Latter Day BaptiPresbyMetholicSuni Adventist-Shias, Inc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saylan,

Thank you for reinterating the position of OLB on the King James issue. I personnally appreciate it very much and commend you for your stand.

Old Fashioned Preacher, that was hilarious!

I still feel that these trolls that get into these discussions  to push their own non-IBF positions are doing harm to honest and sincere IFB's. Calvinism, A-millenialsim, amd any form of 'Replacement Theology' to most IFB's are heretical doctrines and cause serious division among the brethren. Since these types of saints do not activley soul win converts they draw their converts from their non-biblical 'Bible' studies. And, that is the main reason they are on the OLB forum.  

 

​Sadly, there are many IFB's teaching a form of Replacement Theology that don't even realize that they are.
I'm not speaking in terms of Israel being replaced by the Church, the Bible clearly makes distinction between the two factions.  The Church is not Israel.

However, a great many IFB's have been teaching different forms of  Replacement Theologies.  We talked about one of those replacements in PM a while back. 

When IFB's teach or preach their opinions or their traditions as being fact when they are in clear contradiction to what is written in God's Holy Word, then they are teaching a form of a Replacement Theology.  Replacement Theologies are more prevalent in Churches today, (not just IFB, but all denominations across the board) than most are willing to admit... and it is mind-boggling. 

And so many cannot see the truth written in God's Word because they have been conditioned to believe a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We also have to acknowledge the difference between a true troll, one who joins a forum for the sole intent of causing trouble, and those who join a forum with good intent but happen to have some differing views.

As SFIC pointed out, one of the big problems among IFB is the prevalent teaching of opinion as fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

That's not going to happen, Genevan...

​It is still what I would like.

I knew when I stated such, it would be denied, yet I feel better 'verbalizing' it.

Many don't understand that when they read something in the KJV and acknowledge it as fact, it was more than likely already

written in the Geneva Bible. Thus making what God said in the Geneva just as equal as the KJV. Yet there is much in the 'perversions'

that do the opposite. The older text of the 1560 does nothing but lift the Lord and his truth high, whereas the 'perversions' downgrade

the Lord and his truth. Equalizing the Word of God used earlier than the KJV, with the modern 'perversions' downgrades God's ability

to preserve his word continuously from Davids day to ours, since most will say it was "Thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever"

as is spoken in David's day in Psalm 12. Or am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​It is still what I would like.

I knew when I stated such, it would be denied, yet I feel better 'verbalizing' it.

Many don't understand that when they read something in the KJV and acknowledge it as fact, it was more than likely already

written in the Geneva Bible. Thus making what God said in the Geneva just as equal as the KJV. Yet there is much in the 'perversions'

that do the opposite. The older text of the 1560 does nothing but lift the Lord and his truth high, whereas the 'perversions' downgrade

the Lord and his truth. Equalizing the Word of God used earlier than the KJV, with the modern 'perversions' downgrades God's ability

to preserve his word continuously from Davids day to ours, since most will say it was "Thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever"

as is spoken in David's day in Psalm 12. Or am I missing something?

​Those who have studied the matter know the translators of the KJB consulted and compared the previous translations (Geneva, Bishops, Great, etc.) and there are stats and charts which show how much each of them and the KJB are the same.

While the older Bibles are exceedingly superior to the MVs, it makes for better continuity and ease of discussion when everyone here is quoting from and discussing things from the same Bible.

Being used to the wording of the Geneva Bible I can understand why you would prefer to use such more and why some of the wording in the Geneva fits your thinking better. If I read a book or article which uses MVs I make sure I have my KJB next to me in case a particular quote isn't clear to me or I can't reconcile it in my mind with what I recall from the KJB. While many others use the NIV, NLT, or another newer version because they say they understand it better, for me those are much more difficult to comprehend. I can read a verse or passage from the NIV (for example) and think "huh?" and then turn to the KJB and read the same verse or passage and it's clear to me.

In my case, the Lord led me to the KJB and upon heeding the Lord's command I found the Word to be so clear to me as it never was before no matter which MV I had tried (at that point I had not read any of the pre-KJBs).

Anyway, I can understand your thoughts on this, but this is a KJO board and everyone having the same Bible as our reference does help overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right to a degree.

When referencing a section of scripture to discuss, it would be of intrinsic value to see if anyone previous to the 1611 worded a 'studied' verse the same way.

(The intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has “in itself,” or “for its own sake,” or “as such,” or “in its own right.)

Thereby giving 'weight' to what some refer to as 'traditional' IFB beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a defender of the KJB here, tho he hasn't posted here in some time, BrandPlucked, and he sometimes compares what other translations/verses say with what the KJB says. Properly done, there is nothing wrong with pointing out how other translations/versions use the same word or term as does the KJB. After all, the KJB translators diligently considered those versions which came before the KJB as they studied the "originals" as part of the process of putting together the KJB.

The board rule is that the KJB is to be used for quotes and the position of the board is that the KJB is perfect as is, with no need of correction from any other sources. It's acceptable to use something from another translation/version as it applies to something within the KJB so long as the use of the other translation/version isn't in the form of attacking the KJB, trying to diminish the KJB, or saying the KJB is wrong on some point. Along with this, the rule of this board is that no translation/version is to be promoted other than the KJB.

So properly used, a non-KJB verse may be posted. That would mean such use must be within the bounds of the rules and position of the board.

Brand Plucked has often shown the KJB verse followed by what others say in agreement with the KJB or which go astray as a part of his defense of the KJB.

It really comes down to intent of the post and keeping within the bounds of the rules and positions of this board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a defender of the KJB here, tho he hasn't posted here in some time, BrandPlucked, and he sometimes compares what other translations/verses say with what the KJB says. Properly done, there is nothing wrong with pointing out how other translations/versions use the same word or term as does the KJB. After all, the KJB translators diligently considered those versions which came before the KJB as they studied the "originals" as part of the process of putting together the KJB.

The board rule is that the KJB is to be used for quotes and the position of the board is that the KJB is perfect as is, with no need of correction from any other sources. It's acceptable to use something from another translation/version as it applies to something within the KJB so long as the use of the other translation/version isn't in the form of attacking the KJB, trying to diminish the KJB, or saying the KJB is wrong on some point. Along with this, the rule of this board is that no translation/version is to be promoted other than the KJB.

So properly used, a non-KJB verse may be posted. That would mean such use must be within the bounds of the rules and position of the board.

Brand Plucked has often shown the KJB verse followed by what others say in agreement with the KJB or which go astray as a part of his defense of the KJB.

It really comes down to intent of the post and keeping within the bounds of the rules and positions of this board.

​Well said but, I caution, not so much that it becomes monotonous and forms into an agenda.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​And so many cannot see the truth written in God's Word because they have been conditioned to believe a lie.

Exactly brother. I am referencing the opposite view and this is exactly my thinking. You hit it on the head! People will not believe the truth in Christianity's realm just because a 'great preacher' doesn't teach it, even though the scriptures say it.

That is exactly my view from where I am standing on my form of partial preterism. I can't see why people won't just 'see'.

Tradition truly binds the slave to it. And breaking the chain is rough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly brother. I am referencing the opposite view and this is exactly my thinking. You hit it on the head! People will not believe the truth in Christianity's realm just because a 'great preacher' doesn't teach it, even though the scriptures say it.

That is exactly my view from where I am standing on my form of partial preterism. I can't see why people won't just 'see'.

Tradition truly binds the slave to it. And breaking the chain is rough.

​We must each be like the Bereans and search the Scriptures to know the truth. No teacher/preacher is perfect (neither are we) so we must be diligent to get in the Word, stay in the Word, and be in much prayer for wisdom and the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

Over the years many things I once held to because that's what I was taught I've found to not be in accord with Scripture. I thank the Lord for guiding me to study things out on my own. Most Christians today don't do that and won't do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the years many things I once held to because that's what I was taught I've found to not be in accord with Scripture. I thank the Lord for guiding me to study things out on my own. Most Christians today don't do that and won't do that.

​I too have lived this, and have come out of it. I now live my own convictions and follow the Lord the way I perceive he wants me to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually, in an argument on the gap theory, went to some earlier TR translations, even the German Luther Bible, to make a point on a matter, to show that all of them said the same thing, ("and the earth was without form, and void...", or an equivilent thereof), and none of them said anything like "BUT the earth BECAME...". So the earlier translations certainly have a place in some studies, but I agree, particularly, here, unless the topic IS the differences and similarities between the translations, (which might make an interesting study), its best of we are all on the same page. That being KJV. I will get out my photocopy of the 1611 version-it actually has a few variations. Be fun to do the spelling, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I will get out my photocopy of the 1611 version-it actually has a few variations. Be fun to do the spelling, as well.

Check out 1 Peter 3:21. The punctuation has been 'erased' when the 1769 took over as the 'text of choice' for modern KJBs.

There was a reference to Blaney being a 'd***able corruptor of God's word', in one bible history section on versions that I read years ago.

 

Look at this -

The commonly printed 1769 KJBThe like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Here is the 1611 original edition -  The like figure whereunto, even Baptism, doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

Edited by Genevanpreacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To go right back to the OP of this thread:

In the first part, the general board is and should be open to anyone who doesn't cause trouble.

But this section, by its very title should be restricted to the close set of "IFB" only. This is the reason for the question.

I do think that plainly, regardless of what somebody calls themselves, if someone plainly rejects many of the generally accepted basics of the IFB position, they should be excluded from this section of the website.

Just because someone may designate themselves as "IFB", if they by their teaching reveal that they hold to positions that are not generally accepted by IFB, such a person should be excluded from this section of the forum.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2016 at 2:56 AM, DaveW said:

To go right back to the OP of this thread:

In the first part, the general board is and should be open to anyone who doesn't cause trouble.

But this section, by its very title should be restricted to the close set of "IFB" only. This is the reason for the question.

I do think that plainly, regardless of what somebody calls themselves, if someone plainly rejects many of the generally accepted basics of the IFB position, they should be excluded from this section of the website.

Just because someone may designate themselves as "IFB", if they by their teaching reveal that they hold to positions that are not generally accepted by IFB, such a person should be excluded from this section of the forum.

Defining trouble as being argumentative in differing beliefs would delete all here from being in this area of the site.

And pointing out the "generally accepted basics of the IFB position" would deny the Independent part of IFB.

True Biblical Baptist 'salvation' is inherently different than most denominations - something plus Jesus dying on the cross for payment of the sins of all mankind - since most denominations, and some Baptists, believe works included with believing in Jesus Christ with all your heart - anyone who believes correctly may call themselves Baptist in doctrine. Other doctrines outside of conversion do sometimes waver between differing views. So why get rid of someone from the INDEPENDENT Baptist realm because of beliefs differing outside of salvation? 

Because of strictly defined views against Independence of Baptist views.

I happen to be as Baptist as some and more than most, yet because of my views on subjects outside of conversion, some here think I am not IFB.

I may not fit Daves view or Alans view of an IFB but I am IFB.

The only time 'trouble' comes from me is when someone states a verse or verses say contrary than what the verses actually state, and claim it is a Baptist doctrine, I get a bit defensive and ask for clarity of the verses quoted - to which most times I get cast aside as having a bad attitude because I question 'normal Baptist teachings'.

Is there not a cause? Can nobody question the basis for some doctrines? is there ever a different view that might be more biblical? 

Not to most IFB here.

Independence is futile if it means 'boxed in' without the ability to correct.

Edited by Genevanpreacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Defining trouble as being argumentative in differing beliefs would delete all here from being in this area of the site.

And pointing out the "generally accepted basics of the IFB position" would deny the Independent part of IFB.

True Biblical Baptist 'salvation' is inherently different than most denominations - something plus Jesus dying on the cross for payment of the sins of all mankind - since most denominations, and some Baptists, believe works included with believing in Jesus Christ with all your heart - anyone who believes correctly may call themselves Baptist in doctrine. Other doctrines outside of conversion do sometimes waver between differing views. So why get rid of someone from the INDEPENDENT Baptist realm because of beliefs differing outside of salvation? 

Because of strictly defined views against Independence of Baptist views.

I happen to be as Baptist as some and more than most, yet because of my views on subjects outside of conversion, some here think I am not IFB.

I may not fit Daves view or Alans view of an IFB but I am IFB.

The only time 'trouble' comes from me is when someone states a verse or verses say contrary than what the verses actually state, and claim it is a Baptist doctrine, I get a bit defensive and ask for clarity of the verses quoted - to which most times I get cast aside as having a bad attitude because I question 'normal Baptist teachings'.

Is there not a cause? Can nobody question the basis for some doctrines? is there ever a different view that might be more biblical? 

Not to most IFB here.

Independence is futile if it means 'boxed in' without the ability to correct.

You quoted me in this response so I shall answer in part.

I never defined trouble in this thread in that way, so your point is irrelevant - unless of course you are accusing me of making that definition, in which case you are doing so without cause. Also in relation to that particular point, I only use it in reference to the general board, and in the context that someone who comes to this site for the purposes of causing trouble should be excluded from the board entirely. It has nothing at all to do with the IFB specific area.

The rest of the post shows an incredible lack of understanding of the actual issues.

GP said:

"True Biblical Baptist 'salvation' is inherently different than most denominations - something plus Jesus dying on the cross for payment of the sins of all mankind - since most denominations, and some Baptists, believe works included with believing in Jesus Christ with all your heart - anyone who believes correctly may call themselves Baptist in doctrine."

For instance, this portion of his post shows that he has no understanding of what it means to be a Baptist. Defining a Baptist as anyone who believes (salvation) correctly may rightly call themselves Baptist in doctrine" is simply incorrect.

In fact I know of people who teach salvation by grace alone without any sort of works added, who would be horrified at being called a baptist. 

Because they do not agree with many of the doctrines that are considered baptist.

GP has no understanding of what it actually means to be "independent" nor of what it means to be a "baptist".

Independent does not mean that everything except salvation is up for grabs - it simply means that each church is free to control its own way as it believes the Lord is directing them.

There are many churches who would and do embrace this sort of independence.

So what makes an independent church specifically an "Independent Baptist Church"?

It would be those "Distinctives" that I referred to as "the generally accepted basics of the IFB position".

Without such "distinctives" a church may very well be an independent church, and it may very well preach salvation correctly, but it could not be correctly called an Independent Baptist Church.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DaveW said:

You quoted me in this response so I shall answer in part.

I never defined trouble in this thread in that way, so your point is irrelevant - unless of course you are accusing me of making that definition, in which case you are doing so without cause. Also in relation to that particular point, I only use it in reference to the general board, and in the context that someone who comes to this site for the purposes of causing trouble should be excluded from the board entirely. It has nothing at all to do with the IFB specific area.

The rest of the post shows an incredible lack of understanding of the actual issues.

GP said:

"True Biblical Baptist 'salvation' is inherently different than most denominations - something plus Jesus dying on the cross for payment of the sins of all mankind - since most denominations, and some Baptists, believe works included with believing in Jesus Christ with all your heart - anyone who believes correctly may call themselves Baptist in doctrine."

For instance, this portion of his post shows that he has no understanding of what it means to be a Baptist. Defining a Baptist as anyone who believes (salvation) correctly may rightly call themselves Baptist in doctrine" is simply incorrect.

In fact I know of people who teach salvation by grace alone without any sort of works added, who would be horrified at being called a baptist. 

Because they do not agree with many of the doctrines that are considered baptist.

GP has no understanding of what it actually means to be "independent" nor of what it means to be a "baptist".

Independent does not mean that everything except salvation is up for grabs - it simply means that each church is free to control its own way as it believes the Lord is directing them.

There are many churches who would and do embrace this sort of independence.

So what makes an independent church specifically an "Independent Baptist Church"?

It would be those "Distinctives" that I referred to as "the generally accepted basics of the IFB position".

Without such "distinctives" a church may very well be an independent church, and it may very well preach salvation correctly, but it could not be correctly called an Independent Baptist Church.

Your lack of stating your view without being an offense is quite awe-inspiring. 

You totally lack an ability to understand flexibility in wording - as to be a true believer IS to believe as a Baptist.

And no Dave you do not know people who believe by grace without works - there is always something when it comes to another denomination. I've spoken with them all.

If they have issues with the Baptist name, it's because of the saved by grace without anything else. You're missing something in their thinking.

Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Your lack of stating your view without being an offense is quite awe-inspiring. 

You totally lack an ability to understand flexibility in wording - as to be a true believer IS to believe as a Baptist.

And no Dave you do not know people who believe by grace without works - there is always something when it comes to another denomination. I've spoken with them all.

If they have issues with the Baptist name, it's because of the saved by grace without anything else. You're missing something in their thinking.

Period.

Before it gets changed........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 31 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...