G. A. Riplinger and fundamentalism

Maybe I should make myself familiar with those three ladies, thank you for the admonition.

Elaborate on the " '81 " section.

 

You miss my point, which was not doctrinal. I am saying that a preacher who would disapprove of her teaching doctrine in a Bible college but then have her teach the same thing in his church is hypocritical.

 

This is very true in my personal experience. I was dis-fellowshiped from my former IFB when I began bringing my NKJV to church services along with my KJV. I love both translations...the beauty of the KJV and the modern understandability of the NKJV without the extra flowery words...however, when the IFB pastor began attacking the NKJV, saying things about it that are not true and that only come from Riplinger books, David Cloud, and D.A. Waite, he refused to take correction, became instantly angry that someone would dare point out an error on his part, and we (my family and I) were run out of the church (not by force) by a bitter coldness that is shameful to the true image and example of Christ. We were shunned. Our friends were told to shun us and they stopped talking to us, etc. That will be the last IFB church I ever attend. Actually, it was more like a cult than a church belonging to the Lord. It was the pastor's way or the highway, literally, and he didn't mince words or pass up the chance to remind the congregation of this on a regular basis. Since then, we have been attending an SBC church that is fundamental the way the old fashioned fundamentalists once were, and is rock-solid on the word in every accurate, true Bible translation. We live and we learn.

 

Sal, if you haven't already done so, go back and re-read my answer on this. I said I DID write her and ask. Go back and read about the reply I received...

As for the subject of "preaching" and Gail Riplinger, she IS preaching when she stands in a church pulpit. She is doing exactly what most pastors are doing when they are standing in the pulpit teaching doctrine. I have a stack of videos put together by her that were filmed at various churches in which she taught doctrine. Not only does she reiterate and teach doctrine that most Christians recognize from the Bible because their pastors have taught it to them, but she teaches false doctrine also. She stands up there teaching the falsehoods from her books, at the same time teaching stories from the Bible--although most of the time she takes those out of proper context. Scripture says that a woman is not to TEACH when the church (the body of believers) is assembled together unless she is teaching only women. The Bible is clear that when there are men in the assembly a woman is not to teach. It is plain and simple, and it is very true that in some IFB churches Riplinger gets away with this. All of a sudden it doesn't matter what the KJV says as long as she agrees with them on their KJO doctrine. THAT is hypocrisy. The worst part is that GAR claims to love and know the Bible, making it appear that she is aware of those verses that forbid her to teach men in the church assembly, yet she defies them without blinking an eye.

I have researched GAR's teachings for over two years and have compiled a 200-page (and growing) essay on her falsehoods, as well as her personal life (which she has kept hidden on purpose), and I know what she really is. By her own words (teachings, claims, defensiveness and refusal to repent when corrected) she identifies who she really is and what she is really all about. It's by her own words; I've just done the compiling. Even the Bible she claims to defend clearly says that it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks. She has not only written down lies equaling deception in her books but she went into churches and spoke those same lies to unsuspecting Christians who trusted her.

 

Don't you just love those Neo-fundamentalists!!!
They have no idea what "fundamentalism" truly is all about...

To be a true Fundamentalist.. you must teach doctrine that is based in THE BIBLE.. not a book from GAR.

Version onlyism doesn't have one verse in the Bible to back it up...
If so, someone show me...

 

No, they don't know what "fundamentalism" is really all about, but they will sure tell you that they think they know what it is. I began to realize that my former pastor was an IFB because the "Independent" meant to him that he could do whatever he thought was right in his own eyes and somehow twist the scripture to make it appear to back him. He was not teachable and he was not humble. What a contrast to my new pastor, who has a servant's heart, is open to correction where he really has erred, and would defend the truths of scripture to his death.

I have become so familiar with what GAR teaches that I can spot her teachings even when a pastor is teaching them as if they are his own thoughts and never says her name. My former pastor could never defend his KJO arguments with scripture, except to twist Psalm 12:6-7 out of context, and would only refer to books by David Cloud and D.A. Waite as his defense for why KJOism is absolutely biblical and correct. Last I checked, D.A. Waite and David Cloud were not moved by God to add their books to the Scriptures. Yet, in some IFB churches that would see to be so.

 

I never knew her to be teaching a Bible doctrine?? I thought she only helped expose the fallacies of modern versions through teaching basic English!:sleeping_2:

I cannot attribute to her that she is teaching Bible doctrine by showing the truths of the Bible through teaching English, but the two are quite synonomous in that area of truth.

 

The NKJV says in Job 24:22 that "God" leaves no man sure of life.

Is that verbatim according to the entirety of Scripture?

I'm sorry IF that was your experience. I am IFB and would not tolerate a pastor who too much resembles a tyrant. Some pastors know to hold a "bulldog" mentality to ward off dissention from the congregation to help maintain order.

I know this may be looked at as being cultish and domineering.

I will have to ask is how is it you approached the pastor to "correct" him?

 

I read what you said; you wrote her. Ask her in person with a gentleman's integrity as a forefront.

So everytime a woman or anyone else stands behind the pulpit and opens their mouths they're preaching?:laugh:

I will have to question to which doctrines are you referring?

Just because a group of people who attend a certain church along with others, come together to hear a woman teach does not mean it is a church service. I think you may lack the discernment to understand the BIG difference between a casual meeting and an order of service that makes a Meeting.

I don't know of her filling the pulpit during an actual service of order.

I do know the difference between one teaching and another preaching while they teach. I hope you know the same.

Seems you have a personal problem with her that will only be solved personally between you and her.

May I suggest you stop gossiping and go speak with her? Will we soon hear of your arrest for stalking her? You seem to be obsessed.

 

Am I a "neo-fundamentalist"?

To be a true fundamentalist you must adhere to the preservation of God's inerrent word to maintain doctrine without error and corruption and not what Tiny Tim says in his posts.:tonofbricks:

I agree,, that why I stick with the Holy Bible, the King James Bible/ The Authorized Version, To Be read in churches, of The Bible.

Riplinger only teaches the English of the Bible, not the Bible, except inadvertantly.

 

Mexdeaf speaks, then
Armchair Scholar speaks

Amen, Brother Armchair Scholar -- Preach it! :thumbs:

I've been in the same SBC church for the last
2007-1963=34years. But during that time I sent
my 5th Grader to a IFB church school. Needless
to say, there were school related meetings at
the IFB church. She went in the 6th grade also.
I didn't even know about the neo-fundamentals
(like eschewing education, distaining success,
and hating anybody the least bit different).
That IFB just taught the fundamentals of Christianity
like they taught in my SBC semi-independant
local church. Well that 5th grader is 38 now, so
that was 26 years ago. Things have changed.

Even yet, most the SBC isn't depending upon
women prophets, woment evangelists,
nor women Paster-teachers AND still teaches
the fundamentals of the faith.

 

Hmm. Let me reconsider. Lesse, in NABV she starts virtually every chapter with a scripture verse. Okay. Then often in the text of the book she often quotes Scripture and then tries to exegete it. Yep, I confirmed it. Riplinger is a woman teaching doctrine to men. :type:

 

Last revised 04(Dec)07

(I describe a shoe. If the shoe fits, feel
free to wear it. If you see ugly in this
mirror - recall the saying : beauty is in the eye of
the beholder!

The fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism
(this are the ones I believe):

1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

The ultra-fundamentals (Beyond simple Fundamentals)
[often called Neo-Fundamentals]:

1. Anti-Bible (KJBO = King James Bible Only)
2. Pro-ignorance
3. Anti-success
4. Pro-legalism
5. pro-hyper-seperation
6. Anti-alien (Hate of gays & women, racism, etc.)

Typical statements made by the ultra-fundamentalists:
(note that the world calls them "fundies"
and we real fundamentalists have to bear their
burden unjustly):

1. The KJB replaces the original language manuscripts
as being God's word
2. Calling "seminary": "cemetery"
3. Jerry Falwell sold out to the Devil; self esteem is evil
4. violating Galations 2:21 (Geneva Bible, 1599):
As, Touch not, Taste not, Handle not.
5. If one doesn't describe their fundamentalism
in the same exact words as another - then the other
must separate from the one.
6. Jews killed Christ; kill a gayboy for Krist

 

I really don't know you, except for what you write here on BB.. but using Ed's definition I would say, Yes.. you are a neo-fundmentalist...

Would you seperate yourself from a church that was teaching the NIV?
Even though you have no scriptural basis for that?
If so, you are going beyond the traditional fundamentals of scripture.. thus you are a neo-fundamentalist...

You are holding to a doctrine that has no basis in the Bible.
A fundamentalist holds only to doctrines that are in the Bible.

Where is Onlyism taught...

What tickles me is all the statements of faith from Neo-Fundamentalists...
of how the KJV is the preserved word of God for the English speaking world... and then list verses behind that statement that have nothing to do with English, or the KJV....
What is worse is the churches that lie... Yes LIE in their statement of faith that say they use the 1611 KJV...
How can God bless a church that lies?

These are the same churches that preach the evils of women teaching men, but hang on every word this false teacher says...

GAR and Osteen have something in common.. .they like to tickle ears...
2 different crowds, but ear pleasing, candy men, afraid of the truth, anyway.. (except for GAR, she is a IFB ear pleasing, Candy woman, afraid of the truth....)

 

Too bad they didn't teach you mathematics.

2007-1963 = 44 years, Ed.

Ed, "Hmmm, you're right, Salamander, I wonder where those ten years went?":laugh:

 

Doesn't quite sound like she is, sounds more like she's taking what the NASV states and then using the KJB coupled with English is exposing the fallacy of the NASV and then showing the error of it as opposing the word of God found in the KJB.

To each his own on that one, but I don't believe that excactly fits the context of Timothy for her to be in violation. Besides, her teaching doesn't "bother" me. :laugh:

 

So then you as a traditional fundamentalist don't ascribe to the Virgin Birth?

Thank you for showing us all the humongous chip you're carrying on your shoulder.

Quite flambouyant accusations there, friend.

BTW, God placed all His wrath against sin on the body of Christ; take THAT from some one I'm sure you've daubed as "ultra-fundamental" ! * :tongue3: * !

 

Read again, he listed virgin birth.

 

My bad. My bad typing.
CORRECTED:

2007-1973 = 34 years