Are IFB churches unbiblical?

I think that this is perfectly legit.

But many of us have had the opposite experience.

I was raised a Free Will Baptist. But my camp was kjvo and legalistic and therefore had good fellowship with IFB's of the same nature.

So we grew up going to the SWORD conference.

HEY!! This is NO INSIGNIFICANT representation of IFB. THE SWORD CONFERENCE!!!!!

(All caps and exclamation points for emphasis- not screaming)

The Sword conference was eat up with that kind of thinking.

I also went IFB for a little while myself and helped a friend start an IFB church. That church was psycho with this kind of thinking.

And I followed evangelists like Phil Kidd who preaches in, not a hundred like you have, but hundreds of churches. Have you ever heard this guy??

He's AMAZING! I mean this in a terribly way.

No IFB church not completely eat up with the kind of thinking I am condemning as a hindrance to the Kingdom would have this guy.

And I have a very good friend who used to himself be a full time evangelist.

He is now a Southern Baptist pastor. He preached with guys like Joe Arthur out of Atlanta and they preached in a whole lot of IFB churches that embraced this kind of thinking that ought to be condemned by all good, able Christian people.

So let's not pretend that this kind of thinking is a tiny fringe.

That would simply be DISHONEST.

 

I didn't make a blanket statement about the IFB.

Reread the OP more thoroughly and I think you will see that easily.

edit: the real OP of the thread that this thread spun off of.

 

The opening post, and many of the responses you've received, were regarding IFB. Towards the end of the previous page, in a response to Matt, you focused on kjvo instead of IFB. No wonder most of us have been confused about what you were attempting to say.

HEAR THAT, FOLKS? LUKE ISN'T TALKING ABOUT THE IFB; HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE IFB WHO ARE KJVO. (shouting to get everyone's attention and make sure we're all discussing the same subject)

 

Longtime IFB and no I have no idea who these supposedly uberfamous preachers Joe Arthur and Phil Kidd are.

 

If you can read, and I know you can, there should be no confusion.

I said in the VERY OPENING POST- the VERY OPENING POST of the thread this thread spawned off of- that not all IFB's think this way.

If you can read at all, you should not be confused.

And if you read ONE THIRD of this thread (actually the thread it spawned from) you'd know we have mainly been talking about IFB's who believe they have an unbroken line all the way back to the Apostles of people who were never part of the catholic church.

That is what I came out against.

That is what Seeking, in his over emotional manner, started this thread in response to.

Along the way in this thread I was asked to name a doctrine that many IFB's believe that is heretical. I said I have done that for days and said ONE EXAMPLE is KJVO.

That should catch you up.

 

You've heard of the SWORD though, I'm sure.

Joe Arthur just hosted it at his church.

 

As for the rest of your post, Luke, it is disingenuous for you to apply the level of knowledge you require for discussing the things of God, but not apply that same level of requirement to other subjects. Sure, discussing whether policemen who are prior military have a propensity towards police brutality (different topic area, different posters, not Luke) has no bearing on salvation; but on this subject, we're talking a subset of IFBers who are allegedly making salvational claims. Since salvation is the most important thing of God, then by all means, your standard of knowing what you're talking about applies.

 

That is so wrong on so many levels that I lack the words to respond to it.

To say that I'd better know what I am talking about when discussing the price of tea in China to the same degree that I'd better know what I am talking about when discussing the TRINITY!!!!!!!!!!

Madness.

Too many steps before it gets to God.

The number of steps you have to take to make it about God proves that it is not as important as discussing the TRINITY for heavens sake.


To ignore the level of importance issue is a big mistake in my opinion.

 

Well, that's just stupid, Luke. If I'm reading this thread, why should I go to another thread?

And there you go with language again. "Many IFBs" believe kjvo? How many is "many"? Out of how many IFBs? Are you going to answer with hazy generalities?

 

Who KNOWS how many?

Who knows how many are NOT KJVO.

You don't know the exact figure of how many are KJVP any better than I know the exact figure of how many are KJVO.

THAT'S stupid Don. It's stupid to ask for an exact figure on something like this. Pure stupid.

 

One is too many in my opinion.

Are there many IFB's that aren't KJVO?

 

"Too many steps before it gets to God"? When the subject of kjvo directly brings into question the validity of one's salvation? And you call that a lesser concern than the Trinity?

 

That's a cop-out, Luke, and you know it. You want to use language like "many," implying a large amount--but you don't want to put a number next to it. How about an estimation? Or a guesstimation? But don't forget, you'll still have to put the comparative number in there (i.e., 50 out of 250).

Otherwise, you keep using a term for which there is no reference.

 

I don't know them either.

The evidence here is still anecdotal. Until it is qualified it is only an opinion on either side and opinions prove nothing.

 

Is only one worthy of an entire series of threads?

How many IFBs are there? And what's your criteria for "many"? More than 50%? Or 25%?

 

You are all mixed up Don.

You said I should know how many churches in the IFB are KJVO before I say such things.

That is not about KJVO. That is about percentages of people who cling to KJVO.

That is about the IFB reputation which is NOT anywhere near as important as a great deal of matters. It is no where near as important as ANY THEOLOGICAL matter.

Literally, the IFB reputation is not as important as the question- how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Yes, one had better know what he is talking about before he propagates this KJVO stuff. That's not the same as questioning HOW MANY KJVO people there are in a movement.

I hope you can see the difference.

Preaching a doctrine and questioning how many might hold to it are two totally different things.
The carefulness needs to be emphasized as it pertains to the doctrine itself- not how many people may or may not believe it.

And I am not saying that care should not be given to either issue. I am saying that it is silly to say that the one (how many people- reputation issue) is as important as the other (people cannot be saved from other versions- heresy issue... and- God knows all there is to ever know about all things at all times- reputation of God issue)

But for the record the TRINITY is IMMEASURABLY more important than KJVO.

 

I knew you wouldn't answer my questions.

"How many" is an "entire series" of threads? :laugh:

If the opinion of the author of the thread thinks it necessary to address this in a thread or threads, then yes.

Hypothetically speaking, if there were presently no churches right now that were KJVO (and this doctrine was not even a doctrine, opinion, propagated or even known) and a church crept up and started preaching this KJVO nonsense, they would be rightly called for false teaching. Secondly, said church should come under scrutiny for such false teaching and divisive behavior.

Knowing the exact number of IFB's is just your way to wiggle out of the issue here. If one provided this you'd argue about that too, even if it were proven accurate.

I ask again:

Is one KJVO too many?

Are there many IFB's that are not KJVO?

Here's an interesting link which attracts "KJV" preachers:

http://fundamental.org/fundamental/...ncountry&countryname=United States of America

I'd take a guess that "many" of them are KJVO, and some of them are KJVP.

 

No, no.

If you are being honest your experience does prove something. It is not just anecdotal. And I think you ARE being honest.

It proves that there are hundreds of churches in the IFB that are not KJVO.

Excellent.

If I am being honest my experience proves something. It is not just anecdotal. And I am being honest.

It proves that there are hundreds of churches in IFB that ARE KJVO.

 

I have put numbers to it Don and I rapidly tire of your little snotty remarks like "that's stupid" and "that's a cop out".

I have said "hundreds" no less than a half dozen times in the last two days.

I have supported it with experience. Hundreds of churches gather for the annual SWORD conference every year for just one of many examples of support.

You have yet to offer any support whatsoever that I am wrong.

 

Hamilton Square Baptist Church was organized in February of 1881. The Northern Baptist Convention was not yet organized (c1901) and the SBC confined its activities to the Old South. So, by default, HSBC was and is an independent church.

What are we as a church supposed to do? Dissolve ourselves and join what group?