Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

What Makes On An "ifb"?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

Independent - individual church congregation, not part of an organizational or denominational structure.

Fundamental - adhering to the fundamentals of the faith 

Baptist - practicing the ordinance of believer's baptism by immersion

 

Hmm. By the above list, almost all evangelicals are fundamentalists, most are baptist and many may even be independent. Making them Independent Fundamental Baptists. The above is the historical definition of Fundamentalism. The application of 'fundamentalist' has OBviously been expanded (or limited) to even more specific items, including the individual & church responsibility to share the gospel, and separation from the world (however that may be individually defined). Has the definition of fundamentalism then changed, or should we be using a different word to describe ourselves?   

 

We should bear in mind that just because someone does not agree with ourselves in every jot and tittle does not mean they are not fundamentalists or whatever the word may be. We are never going to agree with everyone about everything - or anyone about everything! Big picture things are in question here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 Has the definition of fundamentalism then changed, or should we be using a different word to describe ourselves?   

 

 

Yes, it should be KJV bible believer now. IFB doesn't mean a thing anymore. No more than when someone says they believe in the inerrant, verbal, plenary, etc. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

ASOD has a very good point about IFB not having any real meaning anymore. While IFB churches of the past that took another direction would drop the IFB name, many don't do that anymore. In this broader region here there are dozens, perhaps scores of IFB churches with very differing positions and practices.

 

Today one has to carefully examine IFB churches because many of them still have their old statement of faith but their practice no longer agrees with the statement.

 

IFB churches were never all in 100% agreement, but in the past the vast majority of them held to the same fundamentals and most often one IFB church wasn't radically different from another. That's no longer true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

ASOD has a very good point about IFB not having any real meaning anymore. While IFB churches of the past that took another direction would drop the IFB name, many don't do that anymore. In this broader region here there are dozens, perhaps scores of IFB churches with very differing positions and practices.

 

Today one has to carefully examine IFB churches because many of them still have their old statement of faith but their practice no longer agrees with the statement.

 

IFB churches were never all in 100% agreement, but in the past the vast majority of them held to the same fundamentals and most often one IFB church wasn't radically different from another. That's no longer true.

The IFB label was important at one time to distinguish from modernist churches but since that time (I say around the 1980's) the waters have been too muddied within the IFB movement for the label to mean much anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There were many of the older fundamentalists who recognized the fact that the very term "fundamentalist" was a broad term that included more than just the Baptists.  In fact, most Roman Catholics could be classified "fundamentalist" by definition. 

Fundamentalism grew out of a response to the liberalism that was creeping into conservative Christian colleges and seminaries.  This liberalism challenged the very authority of the written word of God, the deity of Christ, and the atonement of Christ.  Since fundamentalism was an ecumenical movement to some degree, the "fundamentals" were written broadly enough to include Presbyterians, Methodists, and other more conservative branches of Christianity.  (That is, those denominations were conservative at the time!) 

However, it was the Baptists who profited most from all of this, and were not afraid to associate themselves with the term "fundamentalist."  Then, once the Southern Baptists went communist and liberal in the first half of the 20th century, the Independent Baptists began to grow.  Because the war on liberalism was still going very strong, these independent Baptists who broke away from the Southern Baptists aligned themselves with the fundamentalist movement, and largely took it over.  BOB Jones University was a leading "fundamentalist" school, but BOB Jones was a Methodist.  Most of the other large fundamentalist schools were Baptist.  Notable exceptions were Moody Bible Institute (non-denominational), Dallas Theological Seminary (non-denominational), which are now both liberal. 

It is my opinion that the independent Baptist movement can largely be attributed to the work of J. Frank Norris, and his attempts to stop the slide of the Southern Baptist Convention. 

The continued rise of the Independent Baptists, who still labeled themselves "fundamentalists" because of the reaction to the rank liberalism that arose with the Westcott and Hort Greek Text and subsequent Bible perversions, brought a whole new meaning to the term "fundamentalist."  I think the leaders of the movement became so accustomed to using the term "fundamentalist" that most people simply forgot where the term came from, and what it was originally attempting to combat.  All of those independent Baptists who labelled themselves "fundamentalist" followed in the wake of Norris, who was decidedly pro-Israel, pre-tribulation rapture, and dispensational in his views.  Thus, the Independent "fundamental" Baptist movement was largely the same.   If the leaders had forgotten why they used the term "fundamentalist," then most certainly the people in the pews had no idea where the term came from, and simply continued to use that term, thinking it referred to themselves, and other likeminded Baptists.  Outside of the Independent Baptist movement, the term "fundamentalist" is rarely used in any positive connotation.  WE OWNED THAT TERM for several decades, until more recently, others have gotten a bit jealous of it, and decided they could muscle in on the territory they did not fight for.

 

The result has been confusion.  It has only been within the last 15-20 years that SOME of the IFB's have begun wavering on their dispensational views, and this stems directly from their interaction with other denominations who lay claim to the term "fundamentalist."  These IFB's seem to want a "dialogue" with those who did not stand up and fight against the rank liberalism at the time.

I can say this.  When I was growing up, ALL of the major independent Baptist schools were dispensational to some degree or another.  NONE of them were post-millennial, a-millennial, post-trib rapture, pre-wrath rapture, or accepted the Covenant Theology heresy. 

 

To summarize, the term "fundamentalist" in its original meaning as applied to the "fundamentalist" reaction to the onslaught of the liberalism in the first half of the 20th century does not mean the same thing as the term Independent Fundamental Baptists.  The IFB grew out of the original "fundamentalist" movement, but they took on their own meaning of that phrase, and separated themselves (as always!) from those who were not Baptist.  The great IFB leaders were Norris, Hyles, ROBerson, Vick, Rice, and their associates.

 

Therefore, in my view, to be a "fundamentalist" is one thing.  To be an Independent Fundamental Baptist is another thing.  The first refers to a broad range of various denominations that could include anything and everything, including Roman Catholics.  The second refers to those Baptists who grew out of that movement, and who held to the Baptist views on things, including some form of dispensationalism.  All of this recent back-pedaling from major Baptist colleges, and departure from a dispensational viewpoint is nothing more than a return to the Roman Catholic teaching that stems from the two greatest Bible Critics of all time - Origen and Augustine.  Baptists soundly refuted BOTH men in their own lifetime and still do.

 

I grew up in an old-fashioned Independent Fundamental Baptist church, and so it is hard for me to drop that term.  But because of the recent confusion over eschatology and the term "fundamentalist" I guess I am going to have to.  It grieves me to do so.

But I am a King James Bible Believer first and foremost.  I lay claim to the term Baptist, because everyone who honestly studies the Bible ends up with the Baptist position.  "The Bible makes us Baptist" as they say.

 

That's my view.

 

In Christ,

Edited by Steve Schwenke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It really doesn't matter what term we use today, we will have to explain it. If we say we are Baptist, we must explain what that means, what Baptists we are associated, and what ones we are not, and why. Saying we are independent often gives rise to many questions. The term fundamentalist has so many negative connections these days this often takes awhile to explain, especially with those who have some of those negative impressions firmly planted in their mind.

 

Even saying Bible believing isn't as clear as it once was because we have so many "versions" out there that millions of professing Christians claim to believe. Narrowing it down to KJB believing still requires explanation.

 

In a small city about 30-some miles from here there are two IFB churches. One IFB church uses the NASB, they sing a mix of contemporary choruses and hymns, they dropped their dress standards, they've become a bit more political-to the point of yoking with the RCC and other churches over political issues; and the other IFB church still uses the KJB, still sings hymns only, still holds to their dress standards, maintains strict separation, but they have determined to hunker down among themselves and huddle up so they are "rapture ready".

 

Speaking only from my own experience, I don't recall ever hearing an IFB pastor preach dispensationalism. All but one IFB pastor I've heard preach on the subject was pre-trib rapture in eschatology, but they were not dispensationalists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Giving rise to the adjective Baptist --- independent, KJ, pre-mil, pre-trib, Bible Believing, non ecumenical, non Charismatic, fundamental,Israel supporting, etc (as room on the sign permits) Baptist Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

Independent - individual church congregation, not part of an organizational or denominational structure.

Fundamental - adhering to the fundamentals of the faith 

Baptist - practicing the ordinance of believer's baptism by immersion

 

Hmm. By the above list, almost all evangelicals are fundamentalists, If I may differ: NO evangelicals are KJV-only, believing it to be the preserved word of God in English for today. I know of NONE that hold that position. Most hold to an open communion. Most have an organization above them and are not local church-ruled. Most are not sanctified, separation-teaching churches. Many use alcohiloc wine for the Lord's Supper, and advocate its use in moderation. So, no, most evangelical churches wouldn't fit the above definition. most are baptist and many may even be independent. Making them Independent Fundamental Baptists. The above is the historical definition of Fundamentalism. The application of 'fundamentalist' has OBviously been expanded (or limited) to even more specific items, including the individual & church responsibility to share the gospel, and separation from the world (however that may be individually defined). Has the definition of fundamentalism then changed, or should we be using a different word to describe ourselves?   

 

We should bear in mind that just because someone does not agree with ourselves in every jot and tittle does not mean they are not fundamentalists or whatever the word may be. We are never going to agree with everyone about everything - or anyone about everything! Big picture things are in question here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

 

 

You're right - none are KJV-only as a church - although individuals may be (my family was). I added the specification after writing the lower paragraphs - sorry! Evangelicals would identify themselves as believing in Biblical inspiration and inerrancy, though, and they do - after a sense. They are often either not aware of the MV debate or think it doesn't matter, and do not understand its impact on belief in inerrancy and inspiration.  On the other points, though, the five traditional fundamentals as listed above make no mention of separation, alcohol, or communion, and thus one can be a fundamentalist by that standard without holding to those tenants that we believe essential to modern fundamentalism.  The five fundamentals also make no statement on church organization - one could thus be a fundamentalist without being an independent. Thus, many evangelical churches would fit the above traditional definition of fundamental without matching our modern understanding of fundamentalism. SWIM? I like Pr. Steve's explanation of that phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
There were many of the older fundamentalists who recognized the fact that the very term "fundamentalist" was a broad term that included more than just the Baptists. In fact, most Roman Catholics could be classified "fundamentalist" by definition. Fundamentalism grew out of a response to the liberalism that was creeping into conservative Christian colleges and seminaries. This liberalism challenged the very authority of the written word of God, the deity of Christ, and the atonement of Christ. Since fundamentalism was an ecumenical movement to some degree, the "fundamentals" were written broadly enough to include Presbyterians, Methodists, and other more conservative branches of Christianity. (That is, those denominations were conservative at the time!) However, it was the Baptists who profited most from all of this, and were not afraid to associate themselves with the term "fundamentalist." Then, once the Southern Baptists went communist and liberal in the first half of the 20th century, the Independent Baptists began to grow. Because the war on liberalism was still going very strong, these independent Baptists who broke away from the Southern Baptists aligned themselves with the fundamentalist movement, and largely took it over. BOB Jones University was a leading "fundamentalist" school, but BOB Jones was a Methodist. Most of the other large fundamentalist schools were Baptist. Notable exceptions were Moody Bible Institute (non-denominational), Dallas Theological Seminary (non-denominational), which are now both liberal. It is my opinion that the independent Baptist movement can largely be attributed to the work of J. Frank Norris, and his attempts to stop the slide of the Southern Baptist Convention. The continued rise of the Independent Baptists, who still labeled themselves "fundamentalists" because of the reaction to the rank liberalism that arose with the Westcott and Hort Greek Text and subsequent Bible perversions, brought a whole new meaning to the term "fundamentalist." I think the leaders of the movement became so accustomed to using the term "fundamentalist" that most people simply forgot where the term came from, and what it was originally attempting to combat. All of those independent Baptists who labelled themselves "fundamentalist" followed in the wake of Norris, who was decidedly pro-Israel, pre-tribulation rapture, and dispensational in his views. Thus, the Independent "fundamental" Baptist movement was largely the same. If the leaders had forgotten why they used the term "fundamentalist," then most certainly the people in the pews had no idea where the term came from, and simply continued to use that term, thinking it referred to themselves, and other likeminded Baptists. Outside of the Independent Baptist movement, the term "fundamentalist" is rarely used in any positive connotation. WE OWNED THAT TERM for several decades, until more recently, others have gotten a bit jealous of it, and decided they could muscle in on the territory they did not fight for. The result has been confusion. It has only been within the last 15-20 years that SOME of the IFB's have begun wavering on their dispensational views, and this stems directly from their interaction with other denominations who lay claim to the term "fundamentalist." These IFB's seem to want a "dialogue" with those who did not stand up and fight against the rank liberalism at the time. I can say this. When I was growing up, ALL of the major independent Baptist schools were dispensational to some degree or another. NONE of them were post-millennial, a-millennial, post-trib rapture, pre-wrath rapture, or accepted the Covenant Theology heresy. To summarize, the term "fundamentalist" in its original meaning as applied to the "fundamentalist" reaction to the onslaught of the liberalism in the first half of the 20th century does not mean the same thing as the term Independent Fundamental Baptists. The IFB grew out of the original "fundamentalist" movement, but they took on their own meaning of that phrase, and separated themselves (as always!) from those who were not Baptist. The great IFB leaders were Norris, Hyles, ROBerson, Vick, Rice, and their associates. Therefore, in my view, to be a "fundamentalist" is one thing. To be an Independent Fundamental Baptist is another thing. The first refers to a broad range of various denominations that could include anything and everything, including Roman Catholics. The second refers to those Baptists who grew out of that movement, and who held to the Baptist views on things, including some form of dispensationalism. All of this recent back-pedaling from major Baptist colleges, and departure from a dispensational viewpoint is nothing more than a return to the Roman Catholic teaching that stems from the two greatest Bible Critics of all time - Origen and Augustine. Baptists soundly refuted BOTH men in their own lifetime and still do. I grew up in an old-fashioned Independent Fundamental Baptist church, and so it is hard for me to drop that term. But because of the recent confusion over eschatology and the term "fundamentalist" I guess I am going to have to. It grieves me to do so. But I am a King James Bible Believer first and foremost. I lay claim to the term Baptist, because everyone who honestly studies the Bible ends up with the Baptist position. "The Bible makes us Baptist" as they say. That's my view. In Christ,
I agree with most of this post. A couple of thoughts: First of all, Norris came out of the Dallas Area, where DTS was started for the sole purpose of teaching Scofield's Dispensational (Darbyist) System, which includes the Pre Trib. So, to say Norris kicked off the Fundamental Baptist Movement (Which I agree with as inarguable fact), and then to reject the fact that Darby and Scofield weren't the influences that brought PreTrib Dispyism to the IFB, is to be less than forthcoming. The tie- in that bothers me most, is that the IFB movement didn't reject the Bible Correctors. Scofield Bibles were found in every hand. Rice had his ecumenical Sword Conferences, where garbage like Torrey's junk was pushed. Hyles was no KJVO, until after Rice died, and Patterson came to work for him. His sermons included " The originals said..." or "a better translation was...." all the way through the mid '80's. They all read Spurgeon, who was fond of Calvin. We have to go back to the mid 1800's , before Armitage influenced the American Bible Societies to capitulate on the Nestle-Aland, to find pure, non-Darbyist, non denominationalist, non- ecumenical, non-Calvinist, Common English Bible ( What they called the universally accepted AV, at the time), Baptists. Yes, we needed to stand against the NCC Communism. Yes, we needed to be Independent again. Yes, we needed to separate from non-Baptists. But we brought some things out of Egypt, in our mixed multitude of IFB. We brought doubt in God's Word. We brought leaders who, though they were Baptist now, advised us to read Protestant Biographies, Commentaries, Study Systems, the Leeks and Garlics, if you would. We brought Church King Nicolaitanism. We brought faulty eschatology. We brought sloppy soul-winning. We brought Scofield Reference Satanism. We brought Rice....'nuff said. So, we still hear quotes from unbelievers like Torrey, Jones Sr.[No eternal security = no belief, right? 'Do right til the stars fall'(which is eschatologically correct, btw) because if you stop, you 'lose your salvation'.] and others at our IFB Bible Colleges. We still read Bios of 'great Christians' like that garbage pro-Catholic book out of Crown, by Ed Reese. We still hear how the Greek sheds more light on the Scriptures, usually from a guy who couldn't order off of a Greek menu. And we still get Calvinism, from the likes of Grady. I love all of these people. I love our rich heritage. But we are in a movement that was meant to purify, and we stopped far short of crossing Jordan. Anishinaabe Edited by prophet1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If you would like to go through this point by point, I would be glad to Steve. I have laid out my reasons, you have laid out yours.
I don't see you as too far away from me.
I don't perceive you to be some heretic, trying to subvert God's Word purposefully.
If you see that I am honestly in favor of seeing our Movement come further out from among them, til we reach the promised land to conquer mightily, than let's get down to it, point by point.
I wish no one who has your sincere intentions any ill will.

If you will, respond. Someone may have to quote me, as Steve may have me on "ignore".

I am only interested in IFB, and have never been anything but IFB.
I am grieved by all of the doctrinal error I heard growing up, and in my first 20 years in the ministry.
But I was so busy planting churches, that I never wrote, blogged, or even spoke to people outside of my own ministry.
It wasn't till I pointed out Jack Schaap's attack on the KJV, in '05, and was attacked for it, that I realized that we had never finalized our pull out of the Bible Corrector's Error.

Search my heart, hear in my last 2 posts, see if you see some Protestant Heresy, or Charismatic subversion in them.

I claim no authority but God's Word, in English the Holy Bible Authorized (King James) Version.

I hold to the Baptist Distinctives.

The Fundamentals are broad and incomplete, so they don't rate, but I hold to them, by default.

I hold to Soulwinning, but not Salesmanship, Lordship, Emergentship or Vikingship salvation.

Can't we look at recent Baptist History, and see where we see eye to eye?

One day it will be too late for our movement, and where will Christianity be left then?

Our kids are fleeing, like rats off of a ship.

The Emergents are recruiting us.

Calvinism is rearing It's ugly Roman head again.

I will fight til they chop off my head, even if you are the one who turns me in, because I am wrong on eschatology. I will lay down my life for my Generation of Baptists.

Will you?

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Prophet

Just because Norris was in the Dallas area does not necessarily mean there was a tie in with Dallas Theological Seminary.  Norris was there long before DTS got started, and Norris was preaching dispensationalism before DTS was started - and he did not have a hand in starting that school anyway, so far as I know.

 

Here is why we can't have any rational discussion.

When you say things like...

"Scofield Reference Satanism..."

and

"We still get Calvinism from the likes of Grady..."

Grady?  Dr. William Grady?  He is not a Calvinist, so I have no idea what you are talking about there....

 

I make absolutely no apologies about what I believe, or why I believe it, and neither do you.  I don't count you an "enemy" so far as winning souls, local church, Baptist distinctives, etc. are concerned.  But we are worlds apart on some important doctrine.  I have some good Baptist preacher friends here in town who disagree with me on this stuff as well, but we get along fine.  So can you and I....but not when you keep hurling those insults. 

 

My position is this: if you believe the KJV is the perfect word of God - more power to you, even when we disagree on doctrine.  I am not the final authority, the KJV is.  I am not the HOly Spirit, so I can only present what I believe the Lord has taught me through various means, including Bible school training, reading, studying, etc.  I have done my best to be honest with myself and with the Lord in my studies, so I teach with a clear conscience. 

 

In my view, kids are fleeing because the pastors got too milk-soppy in their teaching and preaching.  They started emphasizing "ministry" and "service" over doctrine.  Doctrine is what keeps them coming.  But too many preachers are afraid to lay on the meat of the word because they might "offend" some people, or they don't think their people can handle it or something.  Well, they won't GROW properly if they are not FED properly.  Once sound Bible doctrine is emphasized, then the word of God starts making more sense as they can see how everything fits together. 

The emphasis seems to be on serving in crazy, invented "ministries" instead of a close, personal relationship with the Lord through private prayer, private bible reading, private Bible study, and then living the consistent Christian life before a lost world. 

Yes, soul-winning is great - and as you said, not salesmanship or mental manipulation.  But anyone can witness at any time during the week - why wait around for the scheduled, "official" church "soul-winning" night? 

 

I love our Baptist heritage and history, and I read as much of it as I can. 

 

I think we have much in common - all I ask is a little more respect instead of those awful insults. 

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

John,

You and I have had this discussion before.  Just because someone does not claim to be "dispensationalist" in an official statement, does not mean that they do not hold to some dispensational teachings.

Further, there is a wide range of "dispensationalism", just as there is a wide range of IFB.  Most IFB's are mild-to-moderate dispensationalists, whether they realize it or not, or whether they claim it or not.  Too many people have a knee-jerk reaction to the term "dispensationalist" and think the term means HYPER-dispensationalist, like Cornelius Stam promoted.  Such is not the case.

 

What makes a person a dispensationalist?

  • If you believe there is a distinction between the OT and the NT
  • If you believe there is a difference between the nation of Israel and the NT Church
  • If you believe that Jesus Christ will return to the earth PHYSICALLY and establish His Kingdom here in the future

 

Those are just three simple things that most IFB's believe and teach, and yet these are distinctively "dispensational" teachings, as opposed to the heresy of Covenant Theology (or as some call it, Replacement Theology.) 

This list above represents a mild - moderate form of dispensationalism. 

Since most IFB's hold to these, or at least used to, then they are/were dispensational even if they did not realize it.

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If you would like to go through this point by point, I would be glad to Steve. I have laid out my reasons, you have laid out yours.
I don't see you as too far away from me.
I don't perceive you to be some heretic, trying to subvert God's Word purposefully.
If you see that I am honestly in favor of seeing our Movement come further out from among them, til we reach the promised land to conquer mightily, than let's get down to it, point by point.
I wish no one who has your sincere intentions any ill will.

If you will, respond. Someone may have to quote me, as Steve may have me on "ignore".

I am only interested in IFB, and have never been anything but IFB.
I am grieved by all of the doctrinal error I heard growing up, and in my first 20 years in the ministry.
But I was so busy planting churches, that I never wrote, blogged, or even spoke to people outside of my own ministry.
It wasn't till I pointed out Jack Schaap's attack on the KJV, in '05, and was attacked for it, that I realized that we had never finalized our pull out of the Bible Corrector's Error.

Search my heart, hear in my last 2 posts, see if you see some Protestant Heresy, or Charismatic subversion in them.

I claim no authority but God's Word, in English the Holy Bible Authorized (King James) Version.

I hold to the Baptist Distinctives.

The Fundamentals are broad and incomplete, so they don't rate, but I hold to them, by default.

I hold to Soulwinning, but not Salesmanship, Lordship, Emergentship or Vikingship salvation.

Can't we look at recent Baptist History, and see where we see eye to eye?

One day it will be too late for our movement, and where will Christianity be left then?

Our kids are fleeing, like rats off of a ship.

The Emergents are recruiting us.

Calvinism is rearing It's ugly Roman head again.

I will fight til they chop off my head, even if you are the one who turns me in, because I am wrong on eschatology. I will lay down my life for my Generation of Baptists.

Will you?

Anishinaabe

 

Outstanding posts from both you and Steve in this thread.

 

I have to admit that I am baffled over the anti-dispensational and anti pretrib positions you hold however.

 

Setting aside all men's thoughts, writings and possible hidden agendas concerning these subjects in the past (who cares). What would make you not clearly see both in the Word alone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Prophet Just because Norris was in the Dallas area does not necessarily mean there was a tie in with Dallas Theological Seminary. Norris was there long before DTS got started, and Norris was preaching dispensationalism before DTS was started - and he did not have a hand in starting that school anyway, so far as I know. Here is why we can't have any rational discussion. When you say things like... "Scofield Reference Satanism..." and "We still get Calvinism from the likes of Grady..." Grady? Dr. William Grady? He is not a Calvinist, so I have no idea what you are talking about there.... I make absolutely no apologies about what I believe, or why I believe it, and neither do you. I don't count you an "enemy" so far as winning souls, local church, Baptist distinctives, etc. are concerned. But we are worlds apart on some important doctrine. I have some good Baptist preacher friends here in town who disagree with me on this stuff as well, but we get along fine. So can you and I....but not when you keep hurling those insults. My position is this: if you believe the KJV is the perfect word of God - more power to you, even when we disagree on doctrine. I am not the final authority, the KJV is. I am not the HOly Spirit, so I can only present what I believe the Lord has taught me through various means, including Bible school training, reading, studying, etc. I have done my best to be honest with myself and with the Lord in my studies, so I teach with a clear conscience. In my view, kids are fleeing because the pastors got too milk-soppy in their teaching and preaching. They started emphasizing "ministry" and "service" over doctrine. Doctrine is what keeps them coming. But too many preachers are afraid to lay on the meat of the word because they might "offend" some people, or they don't think their people can handle it or something. Well, they won't GROW properly if they are not FED properly. Once sound Bible doctrine is emphasized, then the word of God starts making more sense as they can see how everything fits together. The emphasis seems to be on serving in crazy, invented "ministries" instead of a close, personal relationship with the Lord through private prayer, private bible reading, private Bible study, and then living the consistent Christian life before a lost world. Yes, soul-winning is great - and as you said, not salesmanship or mental manipulation. But anyone can witness at any time during the week - why wait around for the scheduled, "official" church "soul-winning" night? I love our Baptist heritage and history, and I read as much of it as I can. I think we have much in common - all I ask is a little more respect instead of those awful insults. In Christ,
The Satanism I am referring to, in the Scofield Reference, is the claim that the KJV is mistranslated. Is this not Satanic? P.M. me, about Grady. Please. I hope that I am wrong, really. I thank God for that man, and love him dearly. Maybe you have some insight, I don't want to air it out here. Read the Book theme, in the Scofield Reference, at the beginning of 11Thes. He whined that he couldn't properly teach the pretrib from the book, because it was mistranslated. Even he admitted that 2Thes, in the KJV , didn't teach 2 separate "raptures". He just blamed the translators, instead of his hero, Darby. In doing so, He cast doubt on the Word, and exposed the roots of the Pre-Trib hoax....the Bible correctors. Anishinaabe Edited by prophet1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Prophet

1.  I do not know of any man that has ever lived that had every single thing correct - whether it be doctrine or how they lived

2.  Yes, Scofield "corrected" the Bible in places, and this is the old nature that pops out in every saved sinner.  Every commentator that has ever written -with very few exceptions - has this propensity.  In their zeal to expound the word of God to help the saints, sometimes they overreach and try to "help God out."  So Scofield is not the only guilty party here.  No doubt, there are men who hold to your position that do the same thing - but I am not willing to call them "Satanic."  It is the old nature, plain and simple.  It is just an over-reach in the level of attack. 

3.  Anything written by man has some amount of leaven in it.  In my view, Scofield had some good ideas, so much so that for the most part I think the Scofield reference Bible is one of the best on the market - but it does have its prOBlems, just as ANYTHING written by man does, no matter what position they write from.  Does this make ALL writings of man "Satanic?" 

 

Look, I read Matthew Henry's commentary, who holds to replacement theology - but man, there is some good - GREAT - material in there, particularly in application.  I am not willing to call it Satanic because of the occasional place where he might "correct" the KJV, or teach something I don't agree with.  That is my point.

 

Yes, correcting the Bible stems from the devil himself - I get that.  But there is a difference between an honest, sincere, servant of the Lord who gets offbase OCCASIONALLY - as David, Elijah, Moses, Abraham, Peter, James, John, and Paul did - and an outright servant of the devil - like Ahab, Judas Iscariot, Westcott, Hort, and Cardinal Martini (one of the editors of the Nestle-Aland Greek Text.  Martini is a Roman Catholic bishop.) 

Scofield got offbase occasionally - who does not? 

Satanic? 

Over the top, brother.

 

Just remember that the next time YOU slip up, and YOUR old nature comes out.  Does it make YOU Satanic?

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Prophet
1. I do not know of any man that has ever lived that had every single thing correct - whether it be doctrine or how they lived
2. Yes, Scofield "corrected" the Bible in places, and this is the old nature that pops out in every saved sinner. Every commentator that has ever written -with very few exceptions - has this propensity. In their zeal to expound the word of God to help the saints, sometimes they overreach and try to "help God out." So Scofield is not the only guilty party here. No doubt, there are men who hold to your position that do the same thing - but I am not willing to call them "Satanic." It is the old nature, plain and simple. It is just an over-reach in the level of attack.
3. Anything written by man has some amount of leaven in it. In my view, Scofield had some good ideas, so much so that for the most part I think the Scofield reference Bible is one of the best on the market - but it does have its prOBlems, just as ANYTHING written by man does, no matter what position they write from. Does this make ALL writings of man "Satanic?"

Look, I read Matthew Henry's commentary, who holds to replacement theology - but man, there is some good - GREAT - material in there, particularly in application. I am not willing to call it Satanic because of the occasional place where he might "correct" the KJV, or teach something I don't agree with. That is my point.

Yes, correcting the Bible stems from the devil himself - I get that. But there is a difference between an honest, sincere, servant of the Lord who gets offbase OCCASIONALLY - as David, Elijah, Moses, Abraham, Peter, James, John, and Paul did - and an outright servant of the devil - like Ahab, Judas Iscariot, Westcott, Hort, and Cardinal Martini (one of the editors of the Nestle-Aland Greek Text. Martini is a Roman Catholic bishop.)
Scofield got offbase occasionally - who does not?
Satanic?
Over the top, brother.

Just remember that the next time YOU slip up, and YOUR old nature comes out. Does it make YOU Satanic?

In Christ,

If I attack the Scriptures, in order to teach my pet doctrine, yes, it makes that attack Satanic.

I stand by my evaluation, that Scofield, under Satan's influence, cast such doubt on the Scriptures here, that several generations stumbled over it.

I see it as the work of the evil one.

It is on a par with, and a partner to, Wescott and Hort.


Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Prophet,

I have attempted to show you how unreasonable you are in these statements.  They absurdly over the top, and fail to take into consideration the entire life's work of a person, instead of highlighting their human failures.  I even gave Scriptural examples - you can't get much worse than Peter denying the Lord on 3 occasions, but the Lord didn't cast him aside.  He forgave him and restored him.

Your hatred for dispensationalism has given you a blind eye to some things, and you are lumping things together that don't belong together. 

 

It is too bad you can't be more reasonable about this because I think that we are very close on many issues outside of dispensationalism.  It would be one thing if you presented your case more reasonably, but when you constantly lay the blame at Scofield's feet, and constantly overlook the REAL Bible perverters like Westcott and Hort, and then even go so far as to say that Scofield's work was Satanic???? 

 

That's just too much for me.  That's why I put you on my ignore list to begin with....but I was hopeful we could get past that point. 

 

So, happy soul-winning, and may the Lord's blessing be on your ministry. 

Romans 14:4 "...to his own master he standeth or falleth..."

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 37 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...