Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

Don't Call This An Independent Baptist Forum


Recommended Posts

  • Members

And you, as a guest, apparently have no prOBlem complaining publicly about said house.

When the house is open to the public and the heretical nonsense is promoted publicly then yes, it is necessary to say something publicly. If everyone said it privately, you wouldn't see the massive amount of agreement on this same issue among others. That is some of the logic behind Paul's "them that sin rebuke BEFORE ALL that OTHERS MAY FEAR.."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

First you need learn to stop the grandiose usage of over-generalizations. Not agreeing with "anything" you say is neither something you can prove, is that even a reasonable accusations. And I think Dave W covered it so well in here and on his new independent thread that I really can't say it any better than he did.

 

When someone "says" they are IFB, and then those of us who have been here long enough and know what that is see something odd, we question it. Yes, there has been-at Matt pointed-a wide divergent view of what constitutes IFB thanks to many of the IFBs critics, but there are some fundamentals to being IFB that have never been a question:

*King James Only

*Pre-Millennial

*Pretribulation

*Non Calvinist

*Dispensational (which includes the difference between the church and Israel)

 

These 5 above are the MAIN doctrinal issues being stepped on by YOU, Covenanter, Invicta and several others on here. So while there has been "wiggle room" in defining IFB, there has NEVER been wiggle room on the above noted doctrines.

I have already done my research and found you to be a great liar when you first joined this forum with the things you posted initially compared to what you stated on other websites, down to even promoting other modern versions. So don't act like I just picked you at random as somebody to pick on. There are some others on here that I disagree with, but the issues are minor, they know who they are, and we NEVER have these kind of conflicts. There are those I can disagree with and move on, and then there are those who I KNOW are wolves in sheeps clothing trying to disrupt the brethren, and you, sir, are one of them, and I make no apologies for my aggressiveness in pointing that out.

 

And this is not the first time you have alluded to my so-called "conspiracy theories". What is ironic about that is the ONLY people that have ever accused me of that have been James White, Fred Butler (one of White's bootlickers and an employee of John MacArthur at Grace To You) and JD Hall. Considering you keep making that accusation without ever qualifying it or supporting it with facts and evidence, just generalizations, it's pretty OBvious to me who you've been hanging out with outside of this forum.

Being apt to teach requires an audience of those who are teachable, not those trying to subvert the hearers and other members. I have not punched you in the nose. And longsuffering means having patience, it does not mean limitless or an indefinite period of toleration of false doctrine. I'd think that after several years now of putting up with the same people and the same heresies we've all been "longsuffering".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

When the house is open to the public and the heretical nonsense is promoted publicly then yes, it is necessary to say something publicly. If everyone said it privately, you wouldn't see the massive amount of agreement on this same issue among others. That is some of the logic behind Paul's "them that sin rebuke BEFORE ALL that OTHERS MAY FEAR.."

 

 

I cannot say that I have OBserved Bro Matt and the other admins/mods promoting heresy.  If you think that they are running things improperly and are guilty because of it, perhaps you should promote your forum site more aggressively.  

 

This site is open to non-IFB Baptists , with provision made for IFBrs-only.  It is too bad that some have prOBlems with that.  

 

It is also too bad that IFB is not formally defined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As in any discussion; there must be an acceptable knowledgeable base of the subject being discussed. The term "independent fundamental  baptist" has changed down through the years to the extent that no one knows exactly what it means; or what a IFB believes in. This wasn't the case many years ago; so therefore just call me an Old Fashion Independent

Fundamental Baptist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The prOBlem with a video discussion is that many of us can have no input in such since we don't have the ability to participate. To be clear, I'm not saying video discussions or hangouts shouldn't take place, they sound great for those who can participate, but it would be helpful if there were some way those of us who can't participate could still have a part in such somehow.

 

The "five points" listed above regarding IFBs isn't from long standing teaching. I've read many statements from old time IFBs, as well as more contemporary ones, and at least two, perhaps three of those five points are never mentioned, with the exception of one or two of them showing up in a more recent years.

 

IFBs were originally formed around the fundamentals of the faith, with these five fundamentals being the most common basis of that.

 

1. The virgin birth and deity of Christ.

2. The substitutionary death of Jesus.

3. The resurrection of Jesus Christ.

4. The verbal inspiration of the Scriptures.

5. The second coming of Christ.

 

IFBs have never been a monolithic bloc and aside from them sharing these five points, have always varied somewhat one from another. It's not surprising that over time more differences have come forth and that great divides have become evident and some in these differing "camps" claim theirs is real and others false. With no central authority, not legal standing, no creed or constitution that IFBs must adhere to, who then among IFBs has some perceived authority to declare who is and isn't IFB; which IFBs are acceptable and which are not; or who can even call themselves IFB?

 

There are several IFB churches in this area which have become so much like the evangelical (or worse) churches around that I wish they didn't still call themselves IFB. While they might have grounds to say they are Independent, and even Baptist, they certainly are not Fundamentalist. Yet, like other IFBs, they have changed the definition of what fundamentalist means which allows them to still consider themselves to be fundamentalists.

 

Online Baptist is an internet forum, not a church. While rules and guidelines are necessary, we can't expect OB to attempt to conduct itself as a church. If a strict definition of IFB were established and only those who met the strict definition were allowed to post here, there would be few members, few posts and little to discuss.

 

I can only think of a few people here today that I don't recall someone else telling them they weren't IFB or weren't saved (or even worse), so depending upon whose version of strict IFB standards were adopted, we might see 90% of us kicked out.

 

I'm against the specific promotion of outright false doctrine. That said, there are some who take any view differing from them to be the same as promoting false doctrine when it's actually just a difference of understanding.

 

Regardless of what we think of one or more of them, the editors of the Sword of the Lord were/are all IFBs, yet there are several differences between John R. Rice, Curtis Hutson and Sheldon Smith. I use this only as a simple, easy to see example. By the definition of some, one, two or all three of these men would not be considered IFB and would not be acceptable here. Is that the direction we want OB to go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't know what the solution per se is.. As an IFB, naturally I believe my position is solid and want to encourage discussion. Perhaps more moderation about keeping threads on track? and if they veer off topic, just shut em down and those people can take it to PM? If a thread goes in circles too many times just close it? I say these things because if anything most threads turn into 100 replies of

" im right you're wrong"
"no, im right and you're wrong"
"heretic"
"heretic"
"sorry for calling you a heretic, that was wrong, im very humble so now you know how right i really am"
".....heretic"
repeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


" im right you're wrong"
"no, im right and you're wrong"
"heretic"
"heretic"
"sorry for calling you a heretic, that was wrong, im very humble so now you know how right i really am"
".....heretic"
repeat.

 

 

A good example of why I stay out of theological discussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

All of this OBfuscation about the definition of "IFB" can be cleared up by a simple logical OBservation:

 

*OBviously, the creator of this forum had an idea of what it meant when the name "AN INDEPENDENT BAPTIST COMMUNITY" was chosen instead of "a hangout for Baptists of any kind".

 

*And OBviously, those who joined the forum since 2002 had an idea of what that meant. If the 5 points made by John were simply the criteria that those who created and joined this forum were what were in contention, then this thread and none of the other debates would be occurring with perhaps some very minor exceptions. 

 

The reason that we ARE having this discussion is because there are several people here that are not confused about what IFB DOES mean by trying to figure out what it does NOT mean and vise versa.

 

*How many non King James Only churches have you ever seen identify themselves as an independent fundamental Baptist church??

*How many Calvinist churches have you ever seen identify themselves as an independent fundamental Baptist church??

*Until Steven Anderson came along, how many anti-dispensational post trib churches have you ever seen identify themselves as an independent Baptist church??

 

Now don't be nitpicky and name the church that meets under the 2nd ice block every 3rd Friday in Antarctica. There are numerous doctrines that are unique to IFB, and I listed the main ones that are in contention on Post #17 above. So far, nOBody has challenged that. John offered somewhat of a rebuttal but such a response is arguing for the reasons that fundamentals labeled themselves as such during periods of rampant modernism. The KJV isn't on his list because at the time such Baptists were known as fundamentalists, the KJV was already the standard and people like James White and Daniel Wallace and D.A. Carson hadn't been born yet. This isn't the point and everyone on here that is not confused about what IFB is knows it. This is not a debate about the origins of fundamentalism and the IFB churches as most of us are well aware of that.

 

Now if you can tell me that the creator of this forum, and those of you who call yourselves IFB who joined this forum honestly expected the attacks on the KJV, the Calvinism and anti-dispensationalism to be normal and routine elements of this forum, would have named the forum as such and would you have joined? In other words, if the header of the forum read:

"An Independent Baptist Community Since 2002-*footnote: we accept and tolerate Calvinism, anti-dispensationalism, Replacement Theology, Post-Tribulationism and attacks on the King James Only conviction" 

....would you have signed up?

No honest person who is truly an independent fundamental Baptist is going to debate that last paragraph. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Only two of the IFB churches around here use the KJB. I only personally know of one Calvinist IFB church, it's a goodly distance from here, but they are the soul winningest, most growing of the IFB churches in the greater area. I know of many more IFBs who don't hold to Dispensationalism than who do hold to it. I didn't encounter any Dispensationalist IFBs until here on OB.

 

John R. Rice was once one of the most prominent IFBs, and still is very influential, and he wasn't KJO.

 

Myself, I only use the KJB, I'm not Calvinst, I'm not Dispensationalist, I am IFB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I always thought this site never allowed for the promotion of other English Bibles other than the KJV. Also, the Calvinism that is promoted here is a real turn off. Calvinism is infecting a lot of IFB circles, especially the schools. Of course with Calvinism also comes Amill, Lordship Salvation and other unbiblical doctrine. I prOBably won't be able to participate in a video chat so I hope that isn't the direction this is going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Only two of the IFB churches around here use the KJB. I only personally know of one Calvinist IFB church, it's a goodly distance from here, but they are the soul winningest, most growing of the IFB churches in the greater area. I know of many more IFBs who don't hold to Dispensationalism than who do hold to it. I didn't encounter any Dispensationalist IFBs until here on OB.

 

John R. Rice was once one of the most prominent IFBs, and still is very influential, and he wasn't KJO.

 

Myself, I only use the KJB, I'm not Calvinst, I'm not Dispensationalist, I am IFB.

So  having said all that, not only does that not answer the question I posed at the end of my last message, but I'll ask, what made you join THIS FORUM as opposed to any other Baptist forum if you believe that such things as "KJO" are merely relative matters among IFB churches?

 

Secondly, a consistent Calvinist is not a "soul winner". A consistent Calvinist is a hard determinist. Anytime you hear a challenge against the prOBlems that Calvinism faces with evangelism, you will always hear Calvinists defend it by referring to preachers like Spurgeon and Carey. Such men in THIS AGE would not even be considered real Calvinists by any honest Calvinist theologian (what an oxymoron). Spurgeon because he constantly flip-flopped on the issue of free will and preterition, and Carey because he believed in using "means" in his presentation of the gospel. Even his own mentor told him, “Young man, sit down! Sit down. You are an enthusiast! When God pleases to convert the heathen He will do it without your help or mine!”

 

A true Calvinist does not believe that a person can or even must make a decision to turn to Christ. As such, Calvinism preaches a false gospel and so I would hardly call Calvinists evangelical nor soul winners any more than I would a Jehovah's Witness. There's a huge difference between using your unconfirmed examples of other Calvinist/IFB churches and comparing it to the enormous amounts of documentation that can be found as to what Calvinists believe and teach.

 

And finally, I notice you said you only USE the KJB, and that you are not a dispensationalist. I won't harp on the first point although it's a pretty suspicious way to word a comment considering the controversy here, but earlier you listed one of the things that you considered one of the fundamentals-that being the Second Coming of Christ. THAT IS DISPENSATIONAL. So if you are not dispensational, you are not IFB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
So having said all that, not only does that not answer the question I posed at the end of my last message, but I'll ask, what made you join THIS FORUM as opposed to any other Baptist forum if you believe that such things as "KJO" are merely relative matters among IFB churches? Secondly, a consistent Calvinist is not a "soul winner". A consistent Calvinist is a hard determinist. Anytime you hear a challenge against the prOBlems that Calvinism faces with evangelism, you will always hear Calvinists defend it by referring to preachers like Spurgeon and Carey. Such men in THIS AGE would not even be considered real Calvinists by any honest Calvinist theologian (what an oxymoron). Spurgeon because he constantly flip-flopped on the issue of free will and preterition, and Carey because he believed in using "means" in his presentation of the gospel. Even his own mentor told him, “Young man, sit down! Sit down. You are an enthusiast! When God pleases to convert the heathen He will do it without your help or mine!” A true Calvinist does not believe that a person can or even must make a decision to turn to Christ. As such, Calvinism preaches a false gospel and so I would hardly call Calvinists evangelical nor soul winners any more than I would a Jehovah's Witness. There's a huge difference between using your unconfirmed examples of other Calvinist/IFB churches and comparing it to the enormous amounts of documentation that can be found as to what Calvinists believe and teach. And finally, I notice you said you only USE the KJB, and that you are not a dispensationalist. I won't harp on the first point although it's a pretty suspicious way to word a comment considering the controversy here, but earlier you listed one of the things that you considered one of the fundamentals-that being the Second Coming of Christ. THAT IS DISPENSATIONAL. So if you are not dispensational, you are not IFB.
The kind of "logic" you ended this post with, is one of the reasons that we (IFB) need to discuss doctrine. The Second Coming is Scriptural, and stands alone, as Doctrine. The timing of it has been the subject of debate since ,at least, the Epistles to the Thessalonians. John Rice, Jack Hyles, Lester Roloff, Lee ROBerson, Tom Malone, Harold Sightler, G.B. Vick, J.V. McGee, and etc, had a wide variety of beliefs... Cloud, Unger, Voegtelin, Greene, and Ouelette don't agree on everything. Trieber and Chappel differ from Paisley and Vaperzan. What about Ruckman? He dots those "I's", and he's a whack jOB concerning abortion or aliens, or marriage. Steven Anderson is IFB,but so is Jack Schaap....you wanna give Schaap a pass, for getting those five right, and crucify Anderson, who doesn't have a Sex-offender record? Watch how he interviewed James White, on his latest film, about modern version, you have to like that! Anishinabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am sick of people making the definition vague so they can with a clear conscience lie about being an IFB.
"I am IFB but the beliefs are so varied that it doesn't mean anything".

It used to mean something and everyone knew it.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...