Jump to content
Online Baptist

Don't Call This An Independent Baptist Forum


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm a little nervous about replying in this thread, and wasn't going to at all, but realized that the reason I joined this forum in the first place was to have uplifting, enjoyable conversations with

I don't mind following rules in someone elses house. No prOBlem. But don't invite me to a pizza party and when I get there you are serving beets and cornbread.    If Matt and the mods want to make t

PrOBably one of the best comments concerning the recent degeneration of OB.   When you mix into a forum Hyles advocates, Ruckman advocates, Cloud advocates, Anderson advocates and Independent Baptis

  • Moderators

Actually, in the past year this has become a place where some of the most doctrinally accurate folks on this board have become the most insufferable boors in their rude behavior toward others. I've been here for almost 7 years - in that time I've seen Calvinists, Catholics and cultists come, push an agenda, and get kicked out; I've seen new evangelicals come and protest our standards and been gently taught a better doctrine, and I've seen disagreements on many issues between the most doctrinally sound folk on the board that are discussed and resolved (or not) amicably. This is the first year I ever remember seeing such antipathy and rudeness toward fellow IFBs and visitors alike.  That is my personal opinion and not a mod statement. The mod perspective is that it becomes really difficult to adequately moderate for people that may be pushing an agenda when we are constantly distracted with having to remind adults how not to behave like children. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

Thank you for your input. It is very hard to define Independent anymore. When we started this forum 12 years ago we could say Independent without a prOBlem, now though is seems that the term Independent is broader than it ever has been. James, would you be willing (with others interested) in doing a video handout and in the near future and discussing this issue? I would like to get others input in a video conversation environment instead of posting on forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Bro. James Ach,

 

I am sorry you cannot agree with anything that comes out of some of our mouths.

And when some say they are IFB's, maybe they are, yet Independent of your 'type' of view on believing the scriptures.

 

I have been rude, and I regret it.

 

I am new to this and I hope to never have to be 'got on' again.

I shall strive to have a better attitude.

 

I have read quite a few of your previous posts from 2012,

and I wonder what happened to your good-natured responses that you OBviously had back then.

I see a lot of 'conspiracy' type of 'thinking'.

I know there are some truths to conspiracies, yet they lack 'facts', and 'sources'.

You prOBably don't care, but that is what destroyed my previous pastors ministry .

Who by the way, disagreed with me in many points also.

But he always was 'loving' in his discussions with me, and chastised me in peace.

And I learned so much more by not being 'pounded'.

 

A 'bishop' must be 'apt to teach', and 'no striker', and do this with 'all longsuffering, and doctrine'.

 

I hope you receive this in the spirit that I mean it.

 

:godisgood:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There is an awful lot of false doctrine being pushed, and some of it quite aggressively.
And it gets excused by those pushing it by them saying that IFB has no standard position. That means that they push whatever they like and still call themselves IFB - which is rubbish.

My biggest thing is that the IFB only area used to be a safe haven to discuss with IFB while the rest of the place allowed anyone to play as long as they were nice.
Over time that has changed. BroMatt can only go on what people say of course, and if people lie to him then what can he do?

But there is no longer an "IFB only" area here.

There should be a fully public area, and a restricted area where truly IFB can discuss IFB only things.

Those that define IFB as loose as some here do should not call themselves IFB and should not be allowed in that area.

But it is an extremely difficult thing to control.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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


When the house says it is a particular thing, and it used to be that thing, but others come in and change the furniture, the paint, the music, the shows on the TV, and the food they prepare in the kitchen, and no one notices - then it is up to those who love what the house used to be to point those things out.......
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

Mark 11:17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Acts 20:28-29 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When the house says it is a particular thing, and it used to be that thing, but others come in and change the furniture, the paint, the music, the shows on the TV, and the food they prepare in the kitchen, and no one notices - then it is up to those who love what the house used to be to point those things out.......

 

Perhaps privately to the owner of the house.  Not publicly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Perhaps privately to the owner of the house. Not publicly.

I don't disagree with that.

But sometimes someone just needs to be stopped immediately, and if the boss isn't around to see it........ Edited by DaveW
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Thank you for your input. It is very hard to define Independent anymore. When we started this forum 12 years ago we could say Independent without a prOBlem, now though is seems that the term Independent is broader than it ever has been. James, would you be willing (with others interested) in doing a video handout and in the near future and discussing this issue? I would like to get others input in a video conversation environment instead of posting on forums.

I will respond to this in greater length later

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with that.

But sometimes someone just needs to be stopped immediately, and if the boss isn't around to see it........

 

Confronting a threat (to proper doctrine) in another's house is one thing.  Publicly criticizing the owner is another- that would be better done privately.   That's my point.

Edited by Arbo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

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 post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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 post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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 post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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 post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

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. 

Edited by Dr James Ach
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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 post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Edited by MatthewDiscipleOfGod
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

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.

Edited by Dr James Ach
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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 Edited by prophet1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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 post
Share on other sites

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.

Quotes from Calvin on evangelism:

If we have any humanity in us, seeing men going to perdition, …ought we not be moved by pity, to rescue the poor souls from hell, and teach them the way of salvation?(from sermon 196 on Deut. 33:18-19; taken from Ref 21 article)

 

…nothing could be more inconsistent with the nature of faith than thatdeadness which would lead a man to disregard his brethren, and to keep the light of knowledge choked up within his own breast. (from commentary on Is. 2:3; taken from Ref 21 article)

 

When we know God to be our Father, should we not desire that he be known as such by all? And if we do not have this passion, that all creatures do him homage, is it not a sign that his glory means little to us?(from sermon 196 onDeut. 33:18-19; taken from Ref 21 article)

 

Since we do not know who belongs to the number of the predestined and who does not, it befits us so to feel as to wish that all be saved. So it will come about that, whoever we come across, we shall study to make him a sharer of peace . . . even severe rebuke will be administered like medicine, lest they should perish or cause others to perish. But it will be for God to make it effective in those whom He foreknew and predestined. (from Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God; taken from the Founders Journal article)

 

there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception….[the Christian's duty is] to be solicitous and to do our endeavor for the salvation of all whom God includes in his calling….[those people insult God] who, by their opinion, shut out any person from the hope of salvation. (from commentary on 1 Tim. 2:4-5; taken from the Founders Journal article)

 
God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, but the ingratitude of the world is the reason why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few. (from commentary on the Synoptic Gospels; taken from the Cork Free Presbyterian Church article)
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I feel like we can all come together and accept that Steve Anderson is a little out there. The dude was on alex jones talking conspiracy theories and post trib theology.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

Quotes from Calvin on evangelism:

If we have any humanity in us, seeing men going to perdition, …ought we not be moved by pity, to rescue the poor souls from hell, and teach them the way of salvation?(from sermon 196 on Deut. 33:18-19; taken from Ref 21 article)

 

…nothing could be more inconsistent with the nature of faith than thatdeadness which would lead a man to disregard his brethren, and to keep the light of knowledge choked up within his own breast. (from commentary on Is. 2:3; taken from Ref 21 article)

 

When we know God to be our Father, should we not desire that he be known as such by all? And if we do not have this passion, that all creatures do him homage, is it not a sign that his glory means little to us?(from sermon 196 onDeut. 33:18-19; taken from Ref 21 article)

 

Since we do not know who belongs to the number of the predestined and who does not, it befits us so to feel as to wish that all be saved. So it will come about that, whoever we come across, we shall study to make him a sharer of peace . . . even severe rebuke will be administered like medicine, lest they should perish or cause others to perish. But it will be for God to make it effective in those whom He foreknew and predestined. (from Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God; taken from the Founders Journal article)

 

there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception….[the Christian's duty is] to be solicitous and to do our endeavor for the salvation of all whom God includes in his calling….[those people insult God] who, by their opinion, shut out any person from the hope of salvation. (from commentary on 1 Tim. 2:4-5; taken from the Founders Journal article)

 
God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, but the ingratitude of the world is the reason why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few. (from commentary on the Synoptic Gospels; taken from the Cork Free Presbyterian Church article)

 

I feel you've missed the point, Calvinists will say to evangelize because they are "told to" in scripture. however its a fools errand if all souls are predetermined (hard determinism) thus your saying that God wants us to waste our time... or make sure that He got it right... or has no idea what He is doing...  judging by your own signature you can't even decide what Bible your going to use as authority... it would be quite hard to take your "message of hope" seriously if you don't even know which book to use.

edit: feel free to start a second thread on this if you want to discuss it, I really would like to follow this thread on the OP not on a tangent.

Edited by Jordan G
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.


Rice is a perfect example of one of the most influential IFB in the Movement's history, being unqualified to post in some minds, because of his weakness on the AV.

Ruckman is a KJVo dispy, but his college allows female students to cross-dress. Throw him out.

Hyles was all over the map doctrinally, with glaring faults.
He preached against Dispensational teaching, yet was Pretrib..throw him out.

The bottom line is, anyone who has travelled the IFB circuit, knows that almost every church has some pet doctrinal hang-up.

What's next, no Briders are allowed?

Try to get Cloud and Chappel on the same page...I dare you!

Try Hutson and anyone.

Schaap is right on point, with all 5, anyone want him around?

Dr. BOB Gray was, too.

No matter the truth, some will continue to pretend that only their camp is the real IFB.

Some will pretend that British Baptists weren't largely Calvinist, from Gill to Spurgeon.

Others will claim that Baptists were always Pre-Trib, ignoring that false doctrine's Protestant roots.

I was in an IFB nursery, my second week out of the womb. I have helped to plant 16 IFB churches. I have never been a part of, member of, supporter of, or admirer of any thing other than IFB. I disagree with everyone on this board, about something.

We will all agree, when we serve together in the Millennium...

Anishinaabe

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

We will all agree, when we serve together in the Millennium...

Anishinaabe

Then by all means; GO JOIN AN ECUMENICAL FORUM. 

I'll deal with your emotionally laden post later. In a nutshell, all you've done is point out PRACTICES of those who failed to live up to their professions, that has zero to do with what IFB as a whole believe, a fact that I pointed on in the list I gave that nOBody has bothered to refute. What you have done is offered the same kind of experiential rationalizing that charismatics use to prove their beliefs. If you believe this strongly about the IFB-WHY ARE YOU HERE? WHY CAN'T ANY OF YOU THAT I'VE ASKED THAT WHO HAVE BEEN VOCAL ABOUT THE IFB ANSWER THAT??

 

Now let me ask you a simple common sense question: if all of the IFB is just as you state, THEN WHAT WOULD BE AN UNACCEPTABLE LINE TO YOU? You can't answer that and be able defend anything else you've said on this thread. The funny thing is that despite all of the flaws of everyone you mentioned, WE ALL KNOW THEY WERE INDEPENDENT FUNDAMENTAL BAPTISTS. HOW?? How did we and do we know that? What is it about every single one of those names you listed that everyone in the last 100 years recognized as an independent fundamental Baptist as opposed to a charismatic, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Catholic, Calvinist/Reformer?? You can't and WON'T answer that one either without playing semantics with subcategorized doctrines.

 

There are basically now 2 kinds of people on this forum: Those who joined because they KNEW and KNOW what an independent fundamental Baptist is, and those who came here to cause confusion among those who are not completely grounded in what they believe and why, in hopes that they will swallow the garbage being fed them about the IFB and join in the anti-fundamentalist crusades led by the likes of Stuff Fundies Like, Jeri Massi, Baptist Deception, Jocelyn Zichterman and her "I Fired God" ex-IFB crowd, FBC JAX Watchdog, James White, Fred Butler, JD Hall, et al. Considering what I've seen on FB and Twitter with fake and anonymous accounts that I KNOW and CAN PROVE came from those groups,  to think that it's not happening on this forum is to be naive to detrimental degrees. 

Edited by Dr James Ach
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 34 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...