Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Re: "Where do we draw the line for Independent Fundamental Baptist?"


Recommended Posts

  • Members
Okay, for starters, I don't appreciate your two posts, Annie, saying my statement was not true - and then adding "across the board." I was referring to the forum in which the thread this thread is speaking about is, and I never referred to forums across the board.


LuAnne, I'm not at all accusing you of dishonesty, just of imprecision, which in your post served to gloss over objections and prove a point, that point being in essence: What's the big deal? The forums aren't really private, and no one is really being excluded, since "the posts [with no qualifier] can be read...and commented on elsewhere in another forum." Again, I'm not saying you were purposely being disingenuous, but I'm just showing how your words came across as 'spin.' Here they are...Notice you're talking the whole time, not about the specific forum from which this thread spun off, but about the forums in general:
Kerfuffle about nothing, methinks. The site is what it is: a Baptist community. There are private forums on any Forum a person is on. The administrator(s) of that site decide what is restricted, and who can be included or not. One of the current restrictions for the IFB forums here is to hold to the KJV.

I really don't see why it's confusing...even though I am KJV, and thus access the site, if I weren't I would simply put it in the category of the men's forum: I can't go there (don't want to :icon_smile: ), and I'm fine with that. It doesn't seem to be a real problem, though, because the posts can be read...and commented on elsewhere in another forum.


I do thank you for your clarification.

Also, I do understand what you're saying, but I don't think you understand what I'm saying...as site owner, if BroMatt desires to make adherence to the KJB one of the prerequisites for membership in the forums, that is his right.

I agree, LuAnne, and have said this several times. (Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying?) I have absolutely no problem with KJO (or brown hair or ownership of a BMW or affinity for PB&J or whatever else) being a requirement for admittance into a private forum. Just name the forum by its identifying characteristic: Brunettes, BMW Owners, PB&J Lovers...It seems so obvious--a no-brainer.

I have no desire to keep repeating and clarifying, as it seems that BroMatt--the one who asked the original question--understands what I'm saying. I'm more than willing to drop the subject, but I can't let imprecision and inaccuracy have the last word....and I will continue to interact as long as people want to continue the conversation.

And if someone doesn't agree, they don't have to request membership...even to prove a point.

I'm not pulling a stunt or proving a point. I'm honestly seeing if "KJVO" is a prerequisite, as the wording in the "IFB doctrinal statement," while insinuating that the applicant must be KJVO, is imprecise on that point...and others have said that non-KJVO-ers have been let in. So, it's more of a test, as well as an informative thing for me to see how the process works instead of commenting on something I haven't looked into.

As to your statement that it isn't that big a deal for you, I honestly find that a bit disingenuous considering the length of this thread and the number of posts by you... :th_popout: . To be clear, I don't mind the posts at all, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm just saying it does seem to be a big deal, and a bit more than just to help make the site sharper and more accurate (and accurate is in the eye of the member, I suppose).


I'm not the one making it a big deal, and I'm not the only one keeping this thread going. I have always thought that when a person takes the time to interact with something I've said, I should do them the courtesy of acknowledging their statements and answering their questions and counterarguments. And that's all I've done...basically just to stand behind my comments about accuracy when it comes to "IFB" doctrine, which deserves to be represented clearly for the beautiful thing it is. Edited by Annie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Annie you have everyone's attention; what is your doctrinal statement on Bible versions?

Rick is right: the point I'm trying to make here has nothing to do with my doctrinal opinions, but with BroMatt's question, "Where do we draw the line for IFB?"

I don't mind saying that I'm not KJVO...Most folks around here already know that. And I have no desire to debate the text issue in this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Rick is right: the point I'm trying to make here has nothing to do with my doctrinal opinions, but with BroMatt's question, "Where do we draw the line for IFB?"

I don't mind saying that I'm not KJVO...Most folks around here already know that. And I have no desire to debate the text issue in this thread.


I just wanted to know your statement, no debate, and certainly not text comparison. Just what you believe about the word of God. Sorry if I wasn't clear...read "Bible versions" above as Word of God. Maybe then I can understand your objections. Here's mine...

The Word of God
I believe the original texts are the divinely inspired Word of God in its entirety, written by men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, and that it is the sole authority for the Christian's faith and conduct. I believe the King James Version of the Bible is the preserved Word of God for teaching and preaching to English speaking people. This is what I will use when I quote scripture. I believe other English translations contain the Word of God including the latest Roman Church Bibles, Douay –Rheims and The New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition. (2 Timothy 3.16-17; 2 Peter 1.20-21)
...the 1769 KJV fits me and I believe God is honored that I have it settled.
Besides the above...I cannot submit to memory the newer EVs. It's too much like casual conversation which, lends to discard or minimize a great percentage when someone is speaking. We have to remember this is God speaking to us and answering questions we have; so, casual, discard, or minimalism are not options. The KJB makes me pause and think about the meaning also; in many cases I look up meaning. It causes me to meditate on God's Word and I know that pleases Him. (2 Timothy 3:15)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



I just wanted to know your statement, no debate, and certainly not text comparison. Just what you believe about the word of God. Sorry if I wasn't clear...read "Bible versions" above as Word of God. Maybe then I can understand your objections. Here's mine...

The Word of God
I believe the original texts are the divinely inspired Word of God in its entirety, written by men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, and that it is the sole authority for the Christian's faith and conduct. I believe the King James Version of the Bible is the preserved Word of God for teaching and preaching to English speaking people. This is what I will use when I quote scripture. I believe other English translations contain the Word of God including the latest Roman Church Bibles, Douay –Rheims and The New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition. (2 Timothy 3.16-17; 2 Peter 1.20-21)
...the 1769 KJV fits me and I believe God is honored that I have it settled.
Besides the above...I cannot submit to memory the newer EVs. It's too much like casual conversation which, lends to discard or minimize a great percentage when someone is speaking. We have to remember this is God speaking to us and answering questions we have; so, casual, discard, or minimalism are not options. The KJB makes me pause and think about the meaning also; in many cases I look up meaning. It causes me to meditate on God's Word and I know that pleases Him. (2 Timothy 3:15)

I will PM you, since I don't want to derail the thread. My own views on the text issue really don't have anything to do with my suggestions and/or 'objections.'
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I still hold to the view that the majority of IFB are KJB. Bro Matt has said that he's been traveling for several years and not all (but MOST) of the IFB churches he's gone to are KJB. I stated that I have searched numerous websites of IFB churches (because of the nature of my job, moving multiple times and having multiple locations to choose from)...just about every one was KJB. I think the OB statement reflects the MAJORITY of IFB's and is good the way it is. Can you be IFB and not KJB only? Obviously. But, I don't think that should change anything with the way the site is set-up currently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I still hold to the view that the majority of IFB are KJB.

There's no way to prove this one way or the other...All we have are our own experiences to inform us, and, as I mentioned before, people like evangelists tend to get invited to places which move in the same 'circles' they do. I have four family members who travel in evangelism (IFB), and most of the churches (including many large churches) in which they minister are not KJVO. My husband and I minister in a place where many, many churches gather each year, and as far as I can tell, the majority are not KJVO, even though they would describe themselves as independent, fundamental, and Baptist. But, as I said, this is just personal experience...not data which is exhaustive. I realize that many IFB churches are KJVO. In fact, enough of them are KJVO that our organization (which is not KJVO) has instituted a policy about the usage of only the KJV in our pulpit, in our counseling, and in all materials published by our organization. Why do we do this? For edification purposes...We don't make the KJVO issue a 'dividing line' between IFB's. We realize that some are KJVO and some aren't, and we don't want to limit our ministry and offend others by drawing the line in a place where it shouldn't be drawn. Same with the pants issue...Our ministry (which has no problem with ladies wearing modest pants and jeans) has a policy about that, too. Our ladies are not allowed to wear pants on site when there are churches and individuals visiting. We recognize that there's plenty of room under the IFB umbrella for those who disagree on these kinds of issues, and our goal is to draw the line accurately, not unreasonably. We limit our own liberty (to use other versions and to wear pants) to expand our ministry to others.

I think the OB statement reflects the MAJORITY of IFB's and is good the way it is. Can you be IFB and not KJB only? Obviously. But, I don't think that should change anything with the way the site is set-up currently.

Let's say for a minute that you're right...but that there is a large number of IFB's which are not KJVO. The doctrinal statement, then, is not accurate, because it doesn't reflect the views of a large sector of IFB's. Not only that, but KJVO-ism is not the position of historic fundamentalism. Edited by Annie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Here's my two cents:
Personally, I am a KJO kinda guy, but I do not believe that one can not learn something nor get saved by many of the newer versions of God's Word. God will use a brick to get someones attention if He has to, He used a rock to give water in the desert to prove a point. I know that the KJO argument has many dark faces and many darker advocates. I am not saying that all are that way inclined, but you get the few IFB's that can get down right nasty on this issue and then there are those that allow God to enlighten in His own time - I am one of the latter. There is nothing more forbidding than telling a saved believer that his doctrine and bible are "wrong" just because one believes it to be so and in the end, regardless of what anyone says this KJO thing is based only on what one believes to be true to themselves.
I have yet to come across a verse that states "Thy shall read the 1611AV King James Bible only and thou shalt condemn all other versions of the devil". Think about it. How do you convince a person that the foundation they have based there entire life's doctrine and understanding of God, Jesus, salvation and the church is now wrong or skewed? Definitely not by forcing KJO doctrine down there throats. You do it subtly with much prayer, understanding, patience and love. Not by telling they are stupid as some KJO liests do.

Now to my point - I am a newbie here so stand corrected if my assumption is incorrect here. Do we as KJO IFB's help those who do not adhere to our beliefs by closing them out of areas of our "life" (forum) for the sake of not having to deal with the nutty side of both factions (I have seen this on the 1611 site - can get a little crazy) or do we allow them to decide for themselves and just ban them when they get crazy and malicious? There are many out there tired of the wishy washy doctrine being preached in the world today and are seeking the truth - do we close the doors of the church just because someone doesn't agree with the preacher. I say let them in and let God and the power of the Word deal with them. They will soon leave when there fire doesn't cause the reaction they are looking for.

Now can someone pls direct to this doctrinal statement so I can become "unprotected"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Members

I understand that there are many IFB's not KJVO, but I have been an IFB since 2006, we have 2 conferences where churches all over the state come every one of them are KJVO. I for one am glad that my church is, it's the best version out there today.

Hi, Christie. I do think it's often a regional thing...Also, as I said before, birds of a feather tend to flock together. Not that my IFB church wouldn't have fellowship with a KJVO IFB church, but we would most likely not be attracted to the same conferences as KJVO IFB churches. Clear as mud? :icon_smile:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I read something interesting about a current trend the other day...Can't remember where, or I would share the link. Apparently a lot of non-KJVO independent Baptist churches are beginning to think that the term "fundamental" has been hijacked* by KJVO churches, so they (the non-KJVO churches), in the interest of clarity of identification, are dropping the term "fundamental" from their church names. Not that they've ceased believing in "the fundamentals" of the faith...they just don't want to be confused with churches which believe the text issue differently.

*Maybe "hijacked" isn't the best term to use, but KJVO-ism wasn't a tenet of historic fundamentalism, and now many churches, like this website, have changed the term "fundamental" to mean something that it didn't before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I read something interesting about a current trend the other day...Can't remember where, or I would share the link. Apparently a lot of non-KJVO independent Baptist churches are beginning to think that the term "fundamental" has been hijacked* by KJVO churches, so they (the non-KJVO churches), in the interest of clarity of identification, are dropping the term "fundamental" from their church names. Not that they've ceased believing in "the fundamentals" of the faith...they just don't want to be confused with churches which believe the text issue differently.

*Maybe "hijacked" isn't the best term to use, but KJVO-ism wasn't a tenet of historic fundamentalism, and now many churches, like this website, have changed the term "fundamental" to mean something that it didn't before.

As a web developer I've been getting weekly requests from KJVO churches to remove the word "Fundamental" from their website. Some of them are even members here and they are (gasp) part of the IFB group on OB. Try again. :biggrin:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I read something interesting about a current trend the other day...Can't remember where, or I would share the link. Apparently a lot of non-KJVO independent Baptist churches are beginning to think that the term "fundamental" has been hijacked* by KJVO churches, so they (the non-KJVO churches), in the interest of clarity of identification, are dropping the term "fundamental" from their church names. Not that they've ceased believing in "the fundamentals" of the faith...they just don't want to be confused with churches which believe the text issue differently.

*Maybe "hijacked" isn't the best term to use, but KJVO-ism wasn't a tenet of historic fundamentalism, and now many churches, like this website, have changed the term "fundamental" to mean something that it didn't before.


Of course, it wasn't, there have been many good IFB evangelists and preachers over the years that have used other Bible versions, but it's not the end of the world if we choose the KJV over the others or you choose whatever version you use. Yes, many people can be saved and live for Christ using other versions. It's your choice what you believe, we just choose the Bible we believe has nothing taken out of it, if you do not want to believe that than that is your choice, no one is condemning you for that. And who says that the KJV is only for IFB churches, there are a lot of other churches who choose to use the KJV regardless of their denomination? To be honest with you if I had to choose between another denomination that uses the KJV and an IFB that does not I would choose the one that uses the KJV. I am not better than you or anyone else, nor I am not smarter or know more than you or anyone else, it is my choice, no one is forced to believe what they do not want to believe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...