What makes a Church IFB?

[Ronda]

Hello "MattBennet" and welcome!  I want to answer your original question with what I have seen (and read) from various IFB churches statements of faith.  First off... independent means 2 things here, they are independent from any council/governing authority with which they do not want to join (for instance the SBC churches have a "convention" to whom they answer to for all doctrine taught in their SBC churches, so if an SBC church pastor wanted to teach on a particular subject, let's say "the rapture", he would first have to make sure he wasn't breaking any rules of the convention to preach on it). But IFB churches want to be free of that governing type of body who could and would likely force them to preach something they didn't believe. And 2nd independent means that not every single IFB is teaching ALL of the same things (I can attest to this as a fact). Here are the things I've seen in person, heard in person, or read in person regarding any IFB church I have heard a sermon from:

SALVATION: personal salvation is by God's grace through faith in Jesus... the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, His death, His blood, and His resurrection from the grave.
 all mankind are born into sin, all have sinned
 each person (individually) must recognize they are a sinner in need of salvation
 each person (individually) must recognize there's no works you can do to "save yourself"
    nor are there any works a person can do to "help" God save you in any way.
 Jesus is the one and only way of salvation, Jesus is the one mediator between God and man
 eternal security of the believer
 when saved we are immediately spiritually placed into the body of Christ

GODHEAD:
 One God revealed in the trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost),
 the virgin birth (and NOT that Mary supposedly remained a virgin)
 not to worship Mary, saints, (nor any other humans or false "gods"/idols) 
 Jesus' eternal Sonship and deity -   born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died in place of sinners on a cross, rose from the grave victoriously, ascended on high, sits on the Father's right hand, and is the believer's mediator

ESCHATOLOGY:
 the pre-trib rapture
 a 7 year tribulation 
 the second coming of Christ
 the millennial kingdom is a real, physical kingdom which will be on earth, and will last a thousand years
 after the millennial reign, God will create a new heaven and a new earth

VARIOUS DOCTRINE:
 the inerrancy of the Bible- God's word to mankind, written by man who were under direct inspiration of Holy Spirit
 the literal interpretation of the Bible
 don't subscribe to replacement theology, but instead hold to the interpretation that God is not finished with Israel (as Romans 11 and others show), 
 dispensationalist (each seem to be of varying degrees)
 hell is a literal place and not just a "symbolic" place (as others wrongly teach)
 separation from ungodliness in the world (varying degrees)
 autonomy/independence from hierarchy (such as conventions/mandates/creeds/confessions/church councils etc) and the right to remain free from the regulations of such hierarchy
 creationism- God created the heavens and earth in 6 literal days (I should add that some hold to a "gap" theory, but they also believe God created the heavens and earth... I am unsure exactly how they calculate the 6 days of creation?)
 giving by free will (offering), not of necessity (tithing)
 believe the sign gifts were temporal in nature (tongues/prophest, etc have ceased, now remains faith/hope/charity(love)
 baptism (immersion baptism) of believer is of believer's own free will, but is in no way a part of salvation. Also only after salvation (no infant baptism), also that baptism of the Holy Spirit already had been given at time of salvation (not during water baptism)
 model of congregationalism -Pastor is established leader of church but each church member can vote on decisions made in regard to the church
    (also most reject the use of boards and associations, unless it's a large church)
 most reject liberalism and modernism
 male-only pastorate
 Israel- blessed by God - Jews were given the land of Israel (and will see literal culmination of promises given in millennium)

DOCTRINE SOME IFB have/don't have:
 King James Bible version preference 
 Biblicists - not legalists, or religionists, or traditionalists
 Conservative nature in dress, actions, music, etc. - not to act/live as the ungodly
 Evangelization (both personal and support of ministries, church planting)
 Separation from worldiness (another area with MUCH varying degrees, some expect complete separation... no TV, no sports, no worldly music-not contemporary Christian music (as it mimics the world), some reject the use of drums and recorded music,  some require dress codes: eg.  below-knee-length skirts, and the men wear collared shirts, etc. Some keep their social interaction within the IFB circles only 
 Some won't accept a baptism from any other church (some even within the IFB churches- from one church to another)
 Some IFB churches believe that ONLY IFB congregations can be called "churches"
 Some departures from traditional IFB eschatology (such as: a few believe only IFB are the bride of Christ), etc
 Some allow only church members to take part in communion services
 

I'm sure there are many other things I haven't thought of for that list... those are just the ones I thought of right now. 
 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Ronda
addendum

[HappyChristian]

Well, I'm sure you got a taste for what the "I" in IFB means to folks, Matt. 

[heartstrings]

 

 What is IFB?

Born again, rejoicing, loving, praying without ceasing, thanks-giving, spirit filled people, rightly dividing the Word of God (King James Bible) and obeying the Great Commission.....or at least should be.    Heaven and earth, and even "IFB" will pass away, but the Word of God will not.

[Alan]

On ‎2016‎年‎1‎月‎11‎日 at 0:16 AM, trapperhoney said:

Seeing as there isn't truly an agreement on what the Fundamentals are today, basically what makes an IFB is them simply calling themselves one.  In my area we don't have strictly IFB, we are Independent Fundamental Missionary Baptists, as we have an emphasis on missions and evangelization -- each one supports missions and missionaries as well as give out tracts and some even street preach.  In our area, to be considered Fundamental you must believe in the Trinity, Christ's virgin birth, sinless life, death, burial and resurrection, believer baptism, literal 7 day creation, KJV only and Dispensationalism from the pre-mil, pre-trib standpoint.

Trapperhoney is correct.

A fundamentalist believes in the literal fulfillment of the book of Revelation. If a person believes in the "Historical" view of Revelation, or that the events are allegorical, symbolic or otherwise not literal, or an A-millenialist, than he is not a fundamentalist.

Furthermore, as Tapperhoney stated, "and Dispensationalism from the pre-mil, pre-trib standpoint." That statement is also correct. A person, or church, or organization, or some internet theologian, who does not believe in the pre-tribulation rapture and the pre-millenialist viewpoint, is not a fundamentalist.

When an individual, or a church, or a school, disbelieves in the the literal viewpoint of the Book or Revelation, or the pre-tribulation rapture, or the pre-millenial coming of Christ, than he is not a true fundamentalist.

 

[Invicta]

On 18/01/2016 at 11:10 AM, Alan said:

Trapperhoney is correct.

A fundamentalist believes in the literal fulfillment of the book of Revelation. If a person believes in the "Historical" view of Revelation, or that the events are allegorical, symbolic or otherwise not literal, or an A-millenialist, than he is not a fundamentalist.

Furthermore, as Tapperhoney stated, "and Dispensationalism from the pre-mil, pre-trib standpoint." That statement is also correct. A person, or church, or organization, or some internet theologian, who does not believe in the pre-tribulation rapture and the pre-millenialist viewpoint, is not a fundamentalist.

When an individual, or a church, or a school, disbelieves in the the literal viewpoint of the Book or Revelation, or the pre-tribulation rapture, or the pre-millenial coming of Christ, than he is not a true fundamentalist.

 

The literal fulfillment is the one the author intended it to be.  If that was by signs or symbols then that is a literal fulfillment. As Rev 1:1 says it was signified, i.e. given by signs or as other scriptures say "in figure" any interpretation other than that is not fundamentalist.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Invicta

[Alan]

2 hours ago, Invicta said:

The literal fulfillment is the one the author intended it to be.  If that was by signs or symbols then that is a literal fulfillment. As Rev 1:1 says it was signified, i.e. given by signs or as other scriptures say "in figure" any interpretation other than that is not fundamentalist.

That statement is a partial truth that is used to twist the literal interpretation of the book of Revelation. And, to try and  make the words in the book of Revelation to mean symbols of the figment of somebodys imagination or false teaching. Invicta, again, you take a partial meaning of a word to take away the real meaning of the word to twist the interpretation of the scriptures.

The Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary in the meaning of Signify says;

1. To make known something, either by signs or words; to express or communicate to another any idea, thought, wish, purpose of command,either by words, by a nod, wink, gesture, signal, orother sign. A man signifies his mind by his voice or by written characters; he may signify his mind by his mind by a nod or other notion, provided the person to whom he directs it, uderstands what it is intended by it.

2. To make known; to declare.

The Lord Jesus signified His words to the apostle John to give us the prophectic (future), events of the book of Revelation that are the literal fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament prophets. John further signified the literal events of the future as depicted in the book of Revelation in writing using characters: i.e., printed words.

False teachers, in order to promote their false teaching, will only give a partital meaning of a word in order to twist, or take away, the true meaning of the scriptures. One of the reasons why so many people are confused with the literal events taking place in the book of Revelation is the many false teachers who take away the meanings of words and make them symbolic or signs.

 

 

[Ukulelemike]

Nowhere in scripture is there any command that a family give away all their earnings, save for just what they need for their essentials. What we see in scripture is that the first church is Jerusalem was quickly inundated with thousands of new converts from all over Asia who chose to stay in Jerusalem to learn, and the believers with the means giving sacrificially to meet their needs. It was no requirement, as was seen when Peter dealt with Ananias and Sapphira, when he said, " Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" In other words, even after he sold it, it was his to do with as he pleased-he didn't have to give it all, he could have brought it and said, "Here is half of what we sold our land for" and it would have been fine. The problem came when he pretended it was the entire price; the sin was in the lie, not the keeping back part.

It was not that long after that we no longer hear of such things happening, because in time, they were dispersed. Many went back home and preached there. No, that giving was for a time and a reason and it was voluntary, as is all giving in the church.

[wretched]

8 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

Nowhere in scripture is there any command that a family give away all their earnings, save for just what they need for their essentials. What we see in scripture is that the first church is Jerusalem was quickly inundated with thousands of new converts from all over Asia who chose to stay in Jerusalem to learn, and the believers with the means giving sacrificially to meet their needs. It was no requirement, as was seen when Peter dealt with Ananias and Sapphira, when he said, " Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" In other words, even after he sold it, it was his to do with as he pleased-he didn't have to give it all, he could have brought it and said, "Here is half of what we sold our land for" and it would have been fine. The problem came when he pretended it was the entire price; the sin was in the lie, not the keeping back part.

It was not that long after that we no longer hear of such things happening, because in time, they were dispersed. Many went back home and preached there. No, that giving was for a time and a reason and it was voluntary, as is all giving in the church.

Well, this interpretation is certainly appealing to the flesh Mike. You seem so certain too, especially how you started off with Nowhere in Scripture with the whole body of the post discussing where exactly it is in Scripture negating whole passages by explaining them away with your commentary. Do you really think your commentary is what God intended? Or does that just make you feel better?

IMO, this line of thought has been the problem with the real church, always has been the problem with the real church and always will be the problem with the real church. IFBs are by in the large the only real churches in existence and always have been since Jerusalem (regardless of the name of them at any given point since).

Talking the good game but never going all the way in following Christ. The first church was the example, turned the world upside down, caused satan and the local government to panic and slaughter the real church and eventually forming a counterfeit government church to quell the tide. Since then, the real church stayed underground, hiding from this government church until the political revolution called the reformation. Now that the real church could go public again, your type of reasoning became the standard and it has been lukewarm because of it, never really needing anything or doing anything.

This mentality is why nothing has ever really gone on for God since and is why we truly are the laodiceans. Most faithful IFBs think they are just so much better Christians than the protestants and the rock n rollers, when in fact we are the lukewarm useless church in God's opinion. Those no good Christians as we like to call them aren't saved to begin with. They are simply the bastard children of that same false government church that quelled real Christianity in the third century, just renamed and reorganized. 

No point in worrying over it though. A handful of true followers of Christ in each of these lukewarm IFBs can't stem the tide back to God and His example when the "pastors" have no clue or intent to.

You know the ones I am talking about? the weirdoes in our churches, the ones who don't care for sports and hobbies and Disney and the world value system and trappings ANYMORE. The ones that only talk about God for real all the time, carry a Bible everywhere, always there to give and help. You have seen them I am sure at some point. The ones all the lukewarmer 3x10s stay away from because they have nothing in common with them.

 

 

 

[John81]

Brother "wretched",

While I agree with much of the premise of your above post I can't agree with the idea that only IFBs, or those similar to them throughout history, were the only ones saved. There have been and still are those in "protestant" churches who are saved.

Many IFBs today would declare a church like the one in Corinth to be "not of us", filled with the unsaved, yet it's clear from Paul's letters to them they were a true church with saved brothers/sisters. The same would apply to some of those at the beginning of Revelation where we see them being warned about certain matters yet they were still true churches with saved folks in them. We can even look further back at Lot, a person most IFBs might declare lost, never saved, a "Christian" in name only, were it not for the Lord making it clear to us in Second Peter that Lot was one of His.

While not Scripture, there are accounts of Christians living along the lines of what we read of in Acts during the first few centuries of Christianity, and a few instances afterward. Writings of early Christians often point out how they stood out from non-christians by their refusal to fight or war, their true love for one another and concern for non-christians, how they held all things common, cared for one another, were good workers and law abiding citizens except where a law required them to deny their God or bow to false gods. In such cases the writings indicate Christians willingly accepted the consequences of obeying God rather than denying Him; often giving public testimonies where such were possible.

No doubt even the "better" churches today, especially in America, are far from such. The love we were commanded by Christ to have for one another so others would know we are His is rarely evident. Instead we most often hear the lost talking of the unkindness and fighting among and between Christians or how they don't even care for their own within their congregation. A very sad testimony.

While I don't believe we are called to live a life of mutual poverty, it does seem that if a poor church family is in need of a new roof for their home or a decent car so they can get to their job, those with money in the church should help them rather than spending their money on a two week vacation of secular "entertainment".

In some of our churches we still sing how "they'll know we are Christians by our love" yet there is precious little love to be seen.

[Ukulelemike]

1 hour ago, wretched said:

Well, this interpretation is certainly appealing to the flesh Mike. You seem so certain too, especially how you started off with Nowhere in Scripture with the whole body of the post discussing where exactly it is in Scripture negating whole passages by explaining them away with your commentary. Do you really think your commentary is what God intended? Or does that just make you feel better?

IMO, this line of thought has been the problem with the real church, always has been the problem with the real church and always will be the problem with the real church. IFBs are by in the large the only real churches in existence and always have been since Jerusalem (regardless of the name of them at any given point since).

Talking the good game but never going all the way in following Christ. The first church was the example, turned the world upside down, caused satan and the local government to panic and slaughter the real church and eventually forming a counterfeit government church to quell the tide. Since then, the real church stayed underground, hiding from this government church until the political revolution called the reformation. Now that the real church could go public again, your type of reasoning became the standard and it has been lukewarm because of it, never really needing anything or doing anything.

This mentality is why nothing has ever really gone on for God since and is why we truly are the laodiceans. Most faithful IFBs think they are just so much better Christians than the protestants and the rock n rollers, when in fact we are the lukewarm useless church in God's opinion. Those no good Christians as we like to call them aren't saved to begin with. They are simply the bastard children of that same false government church that quelled real Christianity in the third century, just renamed and reorganized. 

No point in worrying over it though. A handful of true followers of Christ in each of these lukewarm IFBs can't stem the tide back to God and His example when the "pastors" have no clue or intent to.

You know the ones I am talking about? the weirdoes in our churches, the ones who don't care for sports and hobbies and Disney and the world value system and trappings ANYMORE. The ones that only talk about God for real all the time, carry a Bible everywhere, always there to give and help. You have seen them I am sure at some point. The ones all the lukewarmer 3x10s stay away from because they have nothing in common with them.

 

 

 

 

Don't understand-I fully believe that Christians ought to be giving people, people who will help other believers when there is a need, but that is a different thing than give everything away that you don't need. That doesn't make one lukewarm-the lukewarm ideal came about when riches became the standard of Christian success, hence the definition given for Laodicea. Laodicea was a church marked by riches, (a vastly different thing from people keeping a bit above their absolute needs), people obsessed with money, and churches filled with unsaved people, who, in the name of Christ, had turned Christ out of His own church. You seem to be moving a bit in the way of, well, I can't even call it legalism, because there was no law demanding such a thing in the first place. More Phariseeism, in that you seem to be adding unscriptural demands upon believers like they did.

The first church in Jerusalem was never meant to be exactly as churches were always to be; it was a unique training ground for the beginning of the churches, but even they were forced out by persecution, so that they would spread the gospel as they were commanded.  Yes, they are an excellent example of how we should indeed be generous to other believers in need, no doubt about that, but if you believe it is just as we should be, where do you draw a line? Meet every day? From house to house? Now don't get me wrong-I think it would be great if we could meet every day as the first church did-unfortunately, we don't really have that luxury in this world anymore, and if they do, there is often not the will. And at which Apostles' feet will you bring all the money you have from selling your property?

One thing I WILL agree with you on, though, and this is the tendency of believers to compartmentalize their Christianity in their lives: This is Work time-no God allowed. This is TV time-No God allowed here. Sunday morning is God time, so that's His. This is a big thing many do, and it is probably why some believers seek out something that seems more 'spiritual', and get involved with the heavy emotionalism of CCM and Pentecostalism-because deep down we know there ought to be more to our relationship and life with Christ. Some churches give plenty of opportunities for further service and teaching and prayer, but people now have gotten addicted to emotion and feelings. When I was first a pastor, I had various types of church gatherings almost every day of the week, but it wasn't long before no one came. It is tough to do when a church isn't interested. Apparently, "Family Time" can't allow God into it either.

[Invicta]

12 hours ago, Alan said:

That statement is a partial truth that is used to twist the literal interpretation of the book of Revelation. And, to try and  make the words in the book of Revelation to mean symbols of the figment of somebodys imagination or false teaching. Invicta, again, you take a partial meaning of a word to take away the real meaning of the word to twist the interpretation of the scriptures.

The Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary in the meaning of Signify says;

1. To make known something, either by signs or words; to express or communicate to another any idea, thought, wish, purpose of command,either by words, by a nod, wink, gesture, signal, orother sign. A man signifies his mind by his voice or by written characters; he may signify his mind by his mind by a nod or other notion, provided the person to whom he directs it, uderstands what it is intended by it.

2. To make known; to declare.

The Lord Jesus signified His words to the apostle John to give us the prophectic (future), events of the book of Revelation that are the literal fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament prophets. John further signified the literal events of the future as depicted in the book of Revelation in writing using characters: i.e., printed words.

False teachers, in order to promote their false teaching, will only give a partital meaning of a word in order to twist, or take away, the true meaning of the scriptures. One of the reasons why so many people are confused with the literal events taking place in the book of Revelation is the many false teachers who take away the meanings of words and make them symbolic or signs.

 

 

You would say that but in the scripture is full of symbols, some are interpreted, some are not . You are so off beam,  I was going on a scripture use signify in John's gospel, not on a modern English interpretation

18  Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
19  This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

When I was in the Brethren we were told that when a symbol is used it is never used again.  That is dangerous nonsense. 

Following are some items in prophecy, tell me if they are literal or symbolic

Daniel 7  The beasts, literal or symbolic?   Verses 7,8. The horns literal or symbolic?  Verse 8   behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things. literal or symbolic?   8:3  Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last.  literal or symbolic?  

Revelation 1:12,13.  Stars and candlesticks,  literal or symbolic?    Chapter 17:1-6   literal or symbolic?  10:3-4 Seven thunders speaking.  literal or symbolic?  11:3,4. Witnesses.  Are they people, or candlesticks or olive trees?  What is the literal understanding and why one and not the others?

That is just a few, picked at random.  Actually there is no such thing as a literal interpretation, if it is literal there is no interpretation. The Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony "Scriptural, Reformed, Protestant, Puritan, Prophetical, Expository, Doctrinal"  So they say. They teach that prophecy is to be read, not interpreted.  Of course the latter is not true because they teach a gap in Daniel's 70 weeks.  Which I take literally with no gap which i believe is a man made interpretation.  About 20 years or so ago, a friend gave me a copy of their magazine, Watching and Waiting and I wrote saying that I disagreed with that, but for quite a number of years, they continued to send me their quarterly magazine till I thought they were teaching the pre trib rapture. and wrote that because of that, I wished them to stop sending the magazine.  They were quite put out and asked where they had taught that, but I couldn't find where, so I must have misunderstood what I read.

 

The secretary of S.G.A.T. is also secretary of The Bible Spreading Union.  They are KJV only

 

[wretched]

6 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

 

Don't understand-I fully believe that Christians ought to be giving people, people who will help other believers when there is a need, but that is a different thing than give everything away that you don't need. That doesn't make one lukewarm-the lukewarm ideal came about when riches became the standard of Christian success, hence the definition given for Laodicea. Laodicea was a church marked by riches, (a vastly different thing from people keeping a bit above their absolute needs), people obsessed with money, and churches filled with unsaved people, who, in the name of Christ, had turned Christ out of His own church. You seem to be moving a bit in the way of, well, I can't even call it legalism, because there was no law demanding such a thing in the first place. More Phariseeism, in that you seem to be adding unscriptural demands upon believers like they did.

The first church in Jerusalem was never meant to be exactly as churches were always to be; it was a unique training ground for the beginning of the churches, but even they were forced out by persecution, so that they would spread the gospel as they were commanded.  Yes, they are an excellent example of how we should indeed be generous to other believers in need, no doubt about that, but if you believe it is just as we should be, where do you draw a line? Meet every day? From house to house? Now don't get me wrong-I think it would be great if we could meet every day as the first church did-unfortunately, we don't really have that luxury in this world anymore, and if they do, there is often not the will. And at which Apostles' feet will you bring all the money you have from selling your property?

One thing I WILL agree with you on, though, and this is the tendency of believers to compartmentalize their Christianity in their lives: This is Work time-no God allowed. This is TV time-No God allowed here. Sunday morning is God time, so that's His. This is a big thing many do, and it is probably why some believers seek out something that seems more 'spiritual', and get involved with the heavy emotionalism of CCM and Pentecostalism-because deep down we know there ought to be more to our relationship and life with Christ. Some churches give plenty of opportunities for further service and teaching and prayer, but people now have gotten addicted to emotion and feelings. When I was first a pastor, I had various types of church gatherings almost every day of the week, but it wasn't long before no one came. It is tough to do when a church isn't interested. Apparently, "Family Time" can't allow God into it either.

Good post Mike but wouldn't it make more sense that the first church was the example God was setting? Next time we wonder why no revival, read Acts and we will know why.

I am no brain scientist but it makes the most sense to me that this was the standard being set. The World has never been turned upside down for Christ since and never will like this.

I have said it before and know it from experience, the worst backslider to God is the believer who feels comfortable where they are right now.

 

 

[Alan]

6 hours ago, Invicta said:

You would say that but in the scripture is full of symbols, some are interpreted, some are not . You are so off beam,  I was going on a scripture use signify in John's gospel, not on a modern English interpretation

18  Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
19  This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

When I was in the Brethren we were told that when a symbol is used it is never used again.  That is dangerous nonsense. 

Following are some items in prophecy, tell me if they are literal or symbolic

Daniel 7  The beasts, literal or symbolic?   Verses 7,8. The horns literal or symbolic?  Verse 8   behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things. literal or symbolic?   8:3  Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last.  literal or symbolic?  

Revelation 1:12,13.  Stars and candlesticks,  literal or symbolic?    Chapter 17:1-6   literal or symbolic?  10:3-4 Seven thunders speaking.  literal or symbolic?  11:3,4. Witnesses.  Are they people, or candlesticks or olive trees?  What is the literal understanding and why one and not the others?

That is just a few, picked at random.  Actually there is no such thing as a literal interpretation, if it is literal there is no interpretation. The Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony "Scriptural, Reformed, Protestant, Puritan, Prophetical, Expository, Doctrinal"  So they say. They teach that prophecy is to be read, not interpreted.  Of course the latter is not true because they teach a gap in Daniel's 70 weeks.  Which I take literally with no gap which i believe is a man made interpretation.  About 20 years or so ago, a friend gave me a copy of their magazine, Watching and Waiting and I wrote saying that I disagreed with that, but for quite a number of years, they continued to send me their quarterly magazine till I thought they were teaching the pre trib rapture. and wrote that because of that, I wished them to stop sending the magazine.  They were quite put out and asked where they had taught that, but I couldn't find where, so I must have misunderstood what I read.

 

The secretary of S.G.A.T. is also secretary of The Bible Spreading Union.  They are KJV only

 

 

20 hours ago, Alan said:

That statement is a partial truth that is used to twist the literal interpretation of the book of Revelation. And, to try and  make the words in the book of Revelation to mean symbols of the figment of somebodys imagination or false teaching. Invicta, again, you take a partial meaning of a word to take away the real meaning of the word to twist the interpretation of the scriptures.

The Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary in the meaning of Signify says;

1. To make known something, either by signs or words; to express or communicate to another any idea, thought, wish, purpose of command,either by words, by a nod, wink, gesture, signal, orother sign. A man signifies his mind by his voice or by written characters; he may signify his mind by his mind by a nod or other notion, provided the person to whom he directs it, uderstands what it is intended by it.

2. To make known; to declare.

The Lord Jesus signified His words to the apostle John to give us the prophectic (future), events of the book of Revelation that are the literal fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament prophets. John further signified the literal events of the future as depicted in the book of Revelation in writing using characters: i.e., printed words.

False teachers, in order to promote their false teaching, will only give a partital meaning of a word in order to twist, or take away, the true meaning of the scriptures. One of the reasons why so many people are confused with the literal events taking place in the book of Revelation is the many false teachers who take away the meanings of words and make them symbolic or signs.

 

 

Invicta,

Again, you need to read my post very carefully and stop twisiting my words.

I never said that the word signify does not never  mean symbol. Look carefully and you will see I carefully use the word "Partial meaning" And, then you furher, as per you usual practice, talk about the Brethren and their problems.

Quite frankly, your replies indicate that you are trying to twist my words and then change the subject. That practice is unethical, and unChristian.

 

[Invicta]

1 minute ago, Alan said:

 

Invicta,

Again, you need to read my post very carefully and stop twisiting my words.

I never said that the word signify does not never  mean symbol. Look carefully and you will see I carefully use the word "Partial meaning" And, then you furher, as per you usual practice, talk about the Brethren and their problems.

Quite frankly, your replies indicate that you are trying to twist my words and then change the subject. That practice is unethical, and unChristian.

 

Alan, I apologiise.  I did not intend to twist your words,

I will ad to the above post that when I post on here it is usually late at night and I suppose I should have retired and been asleep.  

 

[wretched]

12 hours ago, John81 said:

Brother "wretched",

While I agree with much of the premise of your above post I can't agree with the idea that only IFBs, or those similar to them throughout history, were the only ones saved. There have been and still are those in "protestant" churches who are saved.

Many IFBs today would declare a church like the one in Corinth to be "not of us", filled with the unsaved, yet it's clear from Paul's letters to them they were a true church with saved brothers/sisters. The same would apply to some of those at the beginning of Revelation where we see them being warned about certain matters yet they were still true churches with saved folks in them. We can even look further back at Lot, a person most IFBs might declare lost, never saved, a "Christian" in name only, were it not for the Lord making it clear to us in Second Peter that Lot was one of His.

While not Scripture, there are accounts of Christians living along the lines of what we read of in Acts during the first few centuries of Christianity, and a few instances afterward. Writings of early Christians often point out how they stood out from non-christians by their refusal to fight or war, their true love for one another and concern for non-christians, how they held all things common, cared for one another, were good workers and law abiding citizens except where a law required them to deny their God or bow to false gods. In such cases the writings indicate Christians willingly accepted the consequences of obeying God rather than denying Him; often giving public testimonies where such were possible.

No doubt even the "better" churches today, especially in America, are far from such. The love we were commanded by Christ to have for one another so others would know we are His is rarely evident. Instead we most often hear the lost talking of the unkindness and fighting among and between Christians or how they don't even care for their own within their congregation. A very sad testimony.

While I don't believe we are called to live a life of mutual poverty, it does seem that if a poor church family is in need of a new roof for their home or a decent car so they can get to their job, those with money in the church should help them rather than spending their money on a two week vacation of secular "entertainment".

In some of our churches we still sing how "they'll know we are Christians by our love" yet there is precious little love to be seen.

I understand what you are saying John. I agree and have little doubt there are saved folks spread across many protestant groups. My real doubt is the root (leadership) of these protestant groups. IMO, the vast majority of those simply could not have the Spirit indwelling to ignore Scripture like they do. The emerging rock n rollers are worse IMO.