Are the majority of those on the BB hostile to the IFB's?

It is not me that puts people into categories according to the length of ones hair or the kind of music they listen to or the way they dress. That is classic stereotyping.

It is not Jack Hyles I am concerned with but his type of mentality. Jack Hyles lives on in many IFB churches.

I agree, and this is the point I am trying to make.

Again we agree. Though who determines modesty might lead to some problems.

I would also agree with this, but let me remind you of the question of the thread:

I've noticed while traveling around this board that a large percentage of those here seem to be openly hostile to IFB's and their beliefs.

Mabye a board like this is in response to those kind of IFB boards mentioned above by those baptists fed up with them? What do you think?


I am simply trying to explain why some people have problems with some IFB churches. You may agree or disagree with the reasons, I am just presenting them.

I wasn’t alive in the 50’s, but perhaps you could find an elderly black American and ask their opinion. Then ask them what the thought of the “morality” coming out of Baptist Pulpits of that time.

As opposed to the middle eastern thinking of today?

Cultures change, music changes with it. I imagine there were those who thought the Gaithers were the liberal/modernists of their day. Some think only hymns and organs should be played in churches. I believe God is big enough to handle our changes in societies. Perhaps we should all just sing the “Song of Moses” every Sunday and limit it to that.

Fair enough, but I am saying the danger is just as great when you go to far.

:thumbs:

Glad you can read my mind. Isn’t that a sin?Mind reading?

How can you hear them, they are to be silent in Church.

So the biblical response would be to “tighten” them back up? If you say no, then you would be part of the problem.

:laugh: :laugh:
I wonder if there are any women reading this? If so, I would like your thoughts on nagging in service.

Do you not consider a Bible study class as an assembly? You are quite willing to be dogmatic on I Cor.11:14. It means what says and says what it means and should be taken the most strict literalist way, but when we get to I Cor.14:34-35 you seem to want to distance a little. It says women are to be silent. And apparently their learning is to take place at the home with the husband teaching. If you are going to be consistent in your interpretive method then approach the verses with the same strict literalism.

1Co 14:34 Your women in the assemblies let them be silent, for it hath not been permitted to them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith;
1Co 14:35 and if they wish to learn anything, at home their own husbands let them question, for it is a shame to women to speak in an assembly.

So you mean we should perhaps take into consideration the day in which Paul lived and the unique circumstances that existed in that time when interpreting scripture? You think maybe I Cor.14:34-35 falls under this?

 

A lot of IFBs today think the gaithers are liberal!

To answer your question a few posts up: I think God knew that society would change, and culture would change....He wrote the Bible to be relevant in all cultures...

In my Grandmother's day, she believed it was a sin to drink coke... it came out of a bottle, and the only other drinks that were bottled was liquor. So she wouldnt drink Coke... was it a sin? of course not, but it could have been a stumbling block.

Is women wearing pants a sin? Of course not. But it may be a stumbling block in some churches or cultures... or in this example, generational differences...

Some things are considered sins today that wasnt 50 yrs ago... Smoking is moving in that direction.

 

In some ways, yes, the state of society and morality is better than it was 50 years ago.

I wasn't around in 1956, but I hear that establishments existed where people of a certain color weren't allowed to go and the phrase, "We don't serve your kind here" was commonly heard. Is that phrase heard at all in 2006? Are people disallowed from going to certain places solely because of the color of their skin? Not that I've heard. Despite what many may believe, the state of society wasn't automatically better just because it was in the pre-Elvis days.

 

Don't give up Chris.

I am and IFB, I am not always proud of what is done in the name of IFBdom, but that doesn't change what I am.

There are good, godly, meek, humble, sweet-spirited men out there who are IFB. For my "tastes" there is no sweeter fellowship when you find these men and it is worth the effort.

Anyone here who knows me knows I am not bashing any other group. There are good, godly, meek, humble, sweet-spirited men who are in the SBC and aby number of groups as well. My point is not comparison, but to show that you can find what you are looking for in the IFB movement.

 

Re:IFB

Chris L.

I have only been on the board for a few months and in that time I have learned that it is best to limit your comments to those that you can both define and debate. I got in way over my head on the politics thread now I just read it. :laugh:

Amongst IFB’s there are variances in standards and separation (both personal and ecclesiastical) that will have you shaking your head, talking to yourself and laughing out loud. I have said before that there seems (to me) to be an undercurrent of unacceptance amongst many of the posters toward the IFB posters, but given the vehemence and animosity that is sometimes so obvious by some in the IFB ranks I can understand.

On the other hand there are some who have such a strong dislike and unacceptance for anyone who is IFB it angers me. I have responded to such a couple of times and been warned by the moderators.:smilewinkgrin:

I have never belonged to a forum of any type and so I am learning not to read voice inflections into the posts and am trying to learn how to weed out words from my posts that seem to trigger negatives in others. There are some though who will avail themselves of every opportunity to bring railing accusations against people who have been dead for years and seem to want to bury us with them.:tear:

I say all of that to say this, stick around perhaps we can participate in a coup and take over the board.

Just kidding monitors :love2:

 

It is not so strange, it is just God using us where he wants us.
I just happen to be where I am because God has led me here. Not because I was running from some type of belief.

And for the last paragraph above, I agree 100%. I don't think I moved away from fundamentalism... it moved... I feel it was hi-jacked by legalists and ignorance. Take KJVO (just an example, I am not hi-jacking this thread) the original fundamentalists were not KJVO. something has changed... If you read some old fundamentalist church's belief statements they said they believed in inspiration of the originals... now a lot state that the 1611 is the only one...their beliefs changed not mine.

And not all IFBs are like this... take C4K, he is very level headed. John of Japan is also level headed. they hold to the old fundamentals that I grew up on.. not the new beliefs that seem to have started in the early 90's.

By definition, I am a fundamentalist... I strongly believe in the fundamentals... I just refuse to believe anything that cannot be backed by the word of God.. . Hey, that is fundamentalism.

edited for proper formatting, kr.

 

Chris,

I am going to let your post stand this time with a slight edit. We do have a forum for that topic. The general rule is that KJV topics would be deleted.

Posters, please DO NOT respond to the KJV topic here or we will have to close this thread.

Please start a thread in the versions forum if you must. Please.

 

Wait..... how can you be an IFB and think there is something worse than a homosexual?

 

The problem is not so much the individual homosexual - they are sinners like anyone else - the problem is the "homosexual agenda" which would force everyone to accept that lifetyle as normal and acceptable.

 

Yes, I agree we need to discuss it in the other forum. The only reason I brought it up here was it is one issue that cannot be seperated from the OPs question...it is one thing that I find wrong with the modern IFB church.... If I was out of line, I am sorry. I just don't know how to address the OP question without mentioning it.

 

A gossip is much worse...
How many churches have been destroyed by homosexuals?
How many churches have been destroyed by gossips?

See?

oops I'm not IFB.
Why is it that it is assumed that everyone that holds to the fundamentals are IFB?

 

My post was supposed to be dripping with irony, just to clarify. I have always found the IFB obsession with homosexuality (an obvious sin, to be sure) to be unhealthy at best.