Why does it seem that IFB are disliked by other Baptist groups

[myreflection26]

dd, We're not supposed to wait till Jesus comes to get along with each other...thats pretty sad. Just because we may not agree on everything doctrinally DOES NOT mean we should be divided outside of church, whoever came up with that man made theory was wacked, and it wasn't the bible either.

Sue

 

[ddavis]

myreflection26 I didn't say that we shouldn't try. If you at what satan did in 1st book of the Bible where he changed to words of God, I think you'll see it does start with the Bible.

 

[p]

Why am I ALWAYS the last one to know?

Now I'm going through the whole calendar trying to find the "National Day of Bickering."

These people on the news don't seem to know any more than I do, they are calling it something hokey, like the "National Day of Prayer."

Couldn't be, otherwise, how could I have missed it?

Did anybody else get this memo?

In His Steps,

Alex Peterson
II Corinthians 10:5
(ducking while the schrapnel flies)

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:
In my opioion the KJV vs other versions is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of truth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect, your opinion is not worth much, just like mine is not worth much. It is what Scripture says that is the issue and Scripture clearly mitigates against your position. Cite some Scripture in favor of it if you wish. No one cares about your opinion in this matter if you are going to exclude other from Fundamentalists. The KJV Onlyists are new comers to fundamentalism. Historic fundamentalism has never held a KJV Only position and this can be amply documented. It is a new position and it is in spite of Scripture, not because of it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Pastor Larry, the IFB that “I know” NM, TX, CO use the KJV and that is my right also, as the Toolman has stated. I don’t think the IFB are being persecuted, nor did I say that, but it seems that the KJV issue is one of the reasons for the dislike of IFB people on this board. I guess I missed which statement was false, I think KJV issue dislike go hand in hand.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some IFB's do use the KJV. My point is that using the KJV does not make one an IFB and not using it does not remove one from the ranks of IFB. Many who are adamantly IFB use other versions. The KJV should not be an issue. Those who are KJV Only are out of line with theology and history. They are on the verge (and some have certainly crossed it) of teaching a false doctrine. I know that is strong but it can be documented and has been. The preference for a version or a text is just that -- a matter of preference.

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddavis:
Pastor Larry do you think that Tuor proves my point about the KJV, then follows dislike? Why do IFB have to defend the KJV, we don't it will defend itself.
what about the other questions on page #1<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I think Tuor sees the issue more clearly than you do. I don't know if Tuor has any dislike for IFB or not. He does appear, based on the last post, to have a handle on this KJV issue pretty well.

The other questions on page one: Why do people dislike IFBs? The most common reason is that we take a biblical stand on separation which is anathema to many. The KJV is an easy target but it is so transparent. As IFBs, we should make it our goal to give the enemy legitimate reasons to dislike us rather than something like the KJV issue.

 

[Eladar]

I don't dislike any Christian group that holds to the scriptures. Neither do I think that Jesus spake in thees and thous either.

Can anyone point out any doctrinal differences between the different versions of the Bible? I'm talking the mainstream Bibles: NIV, KJV, RSV, NAS

When I read a verse from one, I see that the same verse in the others say pretty much the exact same thing. I just see this JKV only stuff as alot to do about nothing.

The one thing I believe Conservative Christians need to be aware of is becoming Pharisitical. We need to be aware of what are God's laws and what are man's. It is all too easy to fall into the same trap as the very religious Jews.

 

[Pioneer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The KJV Onlyists are new comers to fundamentalism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would say that the only reason we are considered "new comers to fundamentalism" is because the Bible version debate wasn't much of an issue until about 30 years ago. Before the NIV and the NASV came along practically all preachers that called themselves fundamentalists accepted the King James Bible as the perfect word of God.

We now have a new generation of preachers (followers of John R. Rice, Jerry Falwell, John MacArthur, and others like them) calling themselves "fundamentalists" but they have abandoned the old paths and went the way of Balaam. They have a form of godliness but are denying the power thereof. Their new bibles are destroying the flock of God and instead of admitting their error they put the blame on us King James Bible believers.

Bro. Steve Smith

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: Pioneer ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The only reason we are considered "new comers to fundamentalism" is because the Bible version debate wasn't much of an issue until about 30 years ago. Before the NIV and the NASV came along practically all preachers that called themselves "fundamentalists" accepted the King James Bible as the perfect word of God.

We now have a new generation of preachers (followers of John R. Rice, Jerry Falwell, John MacArthur, and others like them) calling themselves "fundamentalists" but they have abandoned the old paths and went the way of Balaam. They have a form of godliness but are denying the power thereof. Their new bibles are destroying the flock of God.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you knew fundamentalist history, you wouldn't say that. The Fundamentals, where the name fundamentalist was coined, from 1919 proclaimed that inspiration applied to the originals. TAll through church history that has been teh position. Version controversy is a modern issue because prior to the last thirty years no one was KJV Only. The great fundamentalist leaders of the early part of this century held no such view as your attribute to them and I can document that. I will as soon as I get to my office. The fact is that virtually no great preacher of early fundamentalism agreed with your position.

The old paths that I and many others follow predate 1611 by about 1511 years. We believe that God's Word has always existed and that modern translations (whatever time frame "modern" might fall in) were judged by their faithfulness to the original language texts, not by comparison to another translation. Your idea of "old paths" is not old at all; it is new.

On your last paragraph, to show how out of touch with the current state of affairs you are, that Falwell has come out in favor of the KJV. Q&A. He believes it is the best translation. However, Falwell understands that your position is inherently faulty and unbiblical.

BTW, the 'NASV' doesn't exist. Look at the title page. It is the New American STandard Bible, hence the NASB.

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:
The problem is that people want a easy religion, I AM NOT RELIGIOUS!!!! I am a CHRISTIAN!!!! The IFB's have always separated from the main stream religions. We hold to the truth of (God's Word) KJV!
WE ARE NOT PROSTESTANT, WE ARE SEPARATISTS, and proud of it. Just As America is fighting to keep our FREEDOM; IFB’s are trying to fight the attacks of the one world church. The one world church is destroying all that IFB's have stood for. Again I am sick of being called a Protestant, Baptists never protested during the Reformation, we Separated from all the corruption and stayed to what we have held to since the beginning. I am a separatist and would be ashamed to be anything else. IFB's are not the only that will reach heaven, that depends on whether or not you accept Christ, but God gave us guidelines, and there is corruption in the one world church. I will stick to the Truth holders. Not the Emotion holders. I see how liberality has hurt our country, liberality is also hurting our churches.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh ... does that answer your question, ddavis?

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


On your last paragraph, to show how out of touch with the current state of affairs you are, that Falwell has come out in favor of the KJV. Q&A. He believes it is the best translation. However, Falwell understands that your position is inherently faulty and unbiblical.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Larry:

The only problem with the quote from Liberty is the following:

"The Holy Spirit helps those who are earnest soul-winners to have a very united stand on this matter. Of course there are some soul-winners and some excellent servants of God who do not use the King James translation, but use some other versions. But the vast majority of dedicated Christian leaders who are aggressive in evangelism and who are highly successful and highly fruitful in soul-winning, prefer, by far, the King James Version even though they may use other translations to which they refer from time to time.

That last statement is pure nonsense. (I guess its a nod to soul-winnin' KJVO IFBs!
)

 

[Pastor Larry]

Chris,

I saw that paragraph at the bottom and decided to ignore it. I was rather pointing out that when he said that Falwell was encouraging people to use other versions he was wrong on his facts. Falwell does not encourage anyone to use other versions. Falwell takes a semi-reasonable position -- that the KJV is the best translation though not perfect. I disagree with him on that but it is a legitimate position. You are right that Falwell is way out of touch with that last paragraph though.

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Dr. Bob]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pioneer:
Before the NIV and the NASV came along practically all preachers that called themselves fundamentalists accepted the King James Bible as the perfect word of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If a lie is told often enough, people will begin to believe it as truth.

I would ask you to find the doctrinal statements and confessions of faith of our historic Baptists - New Hamshire, London, Philadelphia, whatever - and find where they say this.

We HAVE always believed and WILL always believe that God inspired the original Greek and Hebrew and that translations into any receptor language are "derived" as inspired.

But the King James Version (which edition?) is the perfect Word of God? Do YOU really believe that?

Our own Dr. Cassidy, one of the staunchest defenders of the King James over modern versions, talks about errors, changes, revisions, corrections - how can something that is PERFECT have such?

Appreciate your answers to this . .

 

[Rockfort]

&lt; ...and others like them) calling themselves "fundamentalists" but they have abandoned the old paths and went the way of Balaam. &gt;

Maybe so. In you they do have an ass uttering words confronting them (or do you take exception to that great KJV word?).

 

[ddavis]

Quote by Pastor Larry:
Those who are KJV Only are out of line with theology and history. They are on the verge (and some have certainly crossed it) of teaching a false doctrine. I know that is strong but it can be documented and has been. The preference for a version or a text is just that -- a matter of preference. Quote

Boy, Pastor Larry you had me almost scared that we agreed on some things, of course till you got to this. How are they out of line in their theology by using only the KJV? Didn’t you say this? “The preference for a version or a text is just that -- a matter of preference”. It’s funny I said basically the same thing on the 13 page thread and was almost burned at the stack, I guess I’m not as eloquent and articulate as you.


Quote by Pastor Larry:
No, I think Tuor sees the issue more clearly than you do

Maybe it is because he sees it from your side and I don't? (no sarcasm intended O.K.) I think it should not be an issue and that’s been my point in this topic. There were several questions ask but the one that keeps the attention is the KJV only issue. You, Dr. Bob and Myreflection26 ( which I hope we can finally agree) are the only ones to hit on the other questions. Which I still feel is the main reason for the dislike on the board.

[ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: ddavis ]

 

[ellis]

I've been absolutely fascinated by this thread, but it has prompted some questions. I realize I am jumping into the middle of something here but as I read this thread, I realized that I am in extremely unfamiliar territory and need some explanations.

1. Apparently, Independent Fundamental Baptists are a particular group or denomination of Baptists? I have never heard of this before. The church in which I grew up, and have always attended considers itself an "independent, autonomous" congregation. But I've never heard of a Baptist church that had rules about women wearing pants,(only a few Pentecostal ones) or using only the KJV, and I know that there isn't anyone in my church who would teach that the way we see and interpret the Bible is the only right way to do so. Yet I am perceiving that these are all things that are taught in independent, fundamental Baptist churches?

2. What kind of dislike is being expressed against this group of churches? My own church is obviously not of this group, but I have never heard anyone in my church, from the pastor to the ushers, ever speak ill about any other kind of Baptist, or any other kind of Christian. We have always taught that as a church, we proclaim Christ and make him known, and function as a Christian community to disciple, fellowship, spread the gospel through missions, and minister to each other and those around us. If our pastor ever spoke against another church or group of Christians, I think we would have people walk out and he would probably be fired.

3. I am really confused about the "KJV only" issue. I've never owned a KJV Bible. Our pastor preaches from the NASB and does Bible study from the NIV. Our church Sunday School literature is NIV. At college, my Bible professor said that advances in translation techniques and the discovery of older and more reliable ancient manuscripts have made for more accurate renderings in English in the modern translations (not paraphrases like the NLB or CEV) than the KJV. And there is also the issue of the antiquated English usage.

I have a feeling that I may have been living on another planet somewhere, but my wife was also fascinated by this "discovery". Does the BF&M2K thing fit in here somewhere as well?

I look forward to further reading.

[ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: ellis ]

 

[John Wells]

OK, true confession time! I was a little apprehensive when I first joined this board because several years ago I had a less than enjoyable experience in looking for a new church home when we moved to Virginia. It had to do with IFB churches. We really liked one (after visiting several) at first, and after numerous visits to all three major weekly events, the pastor came to the house for a visit (along with the youth minister). After some pleasantries, he rose and handed me a fifteen page, front and back dossier containing the names of "who's who in American Christianity." Everybody was on the list. As I started to read and he started to explain, they were attacks on what was wrong with their ministries, in this church's humble opinion. Well, a few weeks later we found a SBC church and joined.

So, although I have been SBC all of my church life, this shows that I am open to finding the right church, no matter what flavor of Baptist it is.

Now, for what I really wanted to say. I have really come to feel comfortable in a predominantly IFB environment, and think that many of you are the greatest! It's great to know that not all IFBers think like that church in Virginia did. While there's still a lot of "my way or the highway" thinkers, I see flexibility as well. It's late, so have a blessed day in the Lord's house and . . . I love you guys and gals!

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Boy, Pastor Larry you had me almost scared that we agreed on some things, of course till you got to this. How are they out of line in their theology by using only the KJV? Didn’t you say this? “The preference for a version or a text is just that -- a matter of preference”. It’s funny I said basically the same thing on the 13 page thread and was almost burned at the stack, I guess I’m not as eloquent and articulate as you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You misquoted me or misunderstood me (I don’t remember my exact verbage). I didn’t say they were out of line in their theology by using the KJV. The context was those who say that the KJV is the “only word of God” or the “perfect word of God in the English language.” It is that position that is out of line with history and theology and borders on false teaching (if not actually crossing it). Using it is fine. Preferring it is fine. Declaring those who do not use it to be heretics is not fine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PL: No, I think Tuor sees the issue more clearly than you do DD: Maybe it is because he sees it from your side and I don't? (no sarcasm intended O.K.) I think it should not be an issue and that’s been my point in this topic. There were several questions ask but the one that keeps the attention is the KJV only issue. You, Dr. Bob and Myreflection26 ( which I hope we can finally agree) are the only ones to hit on the other questions. Which I still feel is the main reason for the dislike on the board.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My understanding was that you were claiming that the belief in the perfection of the KJV was the reason for dislike of IFBs. My point is that KJV Onlyism is not a IFB doctrine. It is something that has never historically been held by orthodox Christians and is not a necessary component of orthodoxy. It is a preference and being genteel should be the rule for decorum on this issue. If I misunderstood you, please accept my apologies.

 

[ddavis]

Pastor Larry, I have enjoyed the converstion on this thread and the different sides of these issues.

Ellis, I would like to what kind of church you attend? I do attend my church becasue I feel it does live closest to the Scripture.

 

[ellis]

What kind of church do I attend? A Baptist church. We are an independent, autonomous congregation. As to which Baptist "group" we belong to, I've been going here all my life and I couldn't tell you. I'll ask. I'm not sure we belong to any denomination or group.

As to the nature of the church, we believe we are a community of born-again Christians who have a biblical mandate to proclaim Christ as Lord and Savior. We believe the Bible to be true and authoritative, the written Word of God which we understand through the illumination of the Holy Spirit. (That's condensed from our church statement of faith)

I have attended this church since cradle roll, and have been a member since my baptism nine years ago. I stay here partly because I have never found any reason to leave, because I believe this is where God has called me to serve, and I believe it functions in all Biblical callings as a true community of believers. That doesn't mean that the same conditions do not exist in other churches, or that I believe that all other churches are wrong or not as "close" to the truth of scripture as we are. Different settings call for different applications of scriptural truths--you don't have a different truth, but it must be relevant and applicable to the culture.

I guess being in the same church all my life has limited my contact and knowledge of what is out there. I did not know there were still any Christians who insisted that the KJV was the only Bible. And I've not ever encountered anyone (except a few Pentecostal people) who didn't allow women to wear pants, or who prescribed a specific dress code for their church. And I have never heard a Baptist church call itself "fundamental" or "fundamentalist" or "independent fundamentalist".

The Christian university I attended is related to the state Southern Baptist body, though my own church is not Southern Baptist. The beliefs taught in the Bible department there were fairly similar in most ways to those I learned in church. I would say that the Bible professors were conservative in their approach to scripture, and described themselves as so. They taught a historical, literal approach to interpretation of scripture.

My questions are not intentionally provocative, I am not familiar with many of the things mentioned here, and am a little surprised that there would be criticism from some Baptists about other Baptists. So I would appreciate hearing your different perspectives to help clear up my confusion. I haven't been living in a cave somewhere, but I'm way out west and the only Baptists I know are those I go to church with.