Independent Fundamental Baptist

If you’ve been around the IFB long enough, you’ll quickly realize that the phrase “you’re just bitter” or anyone of it’s variations is typically the IFBer’s first line of defense against logic and reason.

I’ve noticed this more and more over the years that I’ve been away from the IFB and I’m not sure if it’s just because I’m more engaged in debate and discussions about the issues or if it is being preached more in the IFB culture. It was certainly taught in the churches I was in growing up. If you have any type of emotion other than happy you were at risk of being labeled as bitter.

It seems that “your just bitter” (citing Hebrews 12:15) has become the manipulation of choice for the IFBer who doesn’t’ like what a person has to say especially if it’s a commentary against the IFB or against it’s dogma. According to the IFB, all those who would oppose the IFB are deemed bitter and not worth their time. Just read through the comments by those who visit and try to oppose the messages of this site and it won’t take you long to read the “your bitter” argument.

This is what philosophers call an ad hominem fallacy. It’s an argument directed at a person or a personal attack rather than a logical response to the idea itself. Instead of asking if I’m bitter, most will assume and judge in classic IFB style and end of story. Nothing more is said. I’m cast aside and my ideas and beliefs hand waved. Noses are turned up in snobbish holier-than-though attitude with no desire to continue the discussion or to expose themselves to such heresy.

People mistake what I and others like me are doing as bitterness when it really isn’t. I would say we are more like the Bereans of Acts 17 who are studying the scriptures to see if what they are being taught is true. Unfortunately we have discovered that much of what’s taught in IFB circles isn’t true. Luckily, unlike the Bereans, we have a much larger platform with which to voice our disgust and disagreement.

I will not lie, I am angry about what the IFB is doing, but I’m not bitter. Anger is a normal response to such injustice and danger. Even Jesus got angry at the money changers in the temple of his day (See Matthew 21, John 2). Just the same, I’m angry at the abuse and manipulation that happens in IFB churches around the world. I’m angry that people are being hurt and turned away from God and Christianity because of the teachings, beliefs and man made traditions of this cult like denomination. I’m angry, but I’m not bitter.

Even if I were bitter so what? Bitterness is a normal emotion and is not a sin. The IFB would like us to believe it is a sin. There’s even a website (http://www.greatbiblestudy.com/bitterness.php) that teaches that women who are raped and have trouble healing and getting closure from the trauma have trouble because they have bitterness. This is pure emotional abuse. The site goes on to also say that boys who have been abused by men and have trouble with healing and trouble with sexual identity (homosexual thoughts) are that way because of bitterness and an inability to forgive. I’m appalled at what I read on this site. How ridiculous and harmful – and unscriptural!!!

There is not one verse in the Bible that calls bitterness a sin. Ephesians warns that bitterness can lead to devastating consequences if left unchecked (see Ephesians 4), but nowhere in the Bible does it call bitterness a sin. In fact, we read in Isaiah 38 that Hezekiah was thankful for his bitterness because it helped him recognize the good that came from his painful experience.

Bitterness can actually be a good thing if we let it motivate us to do things differently. Just like this site, I use the bitterness I once had to motivate me to study the scriptures and use logic and reason to deduce the errors of the IFB. Now, no longer bitter, I can thank God for the good that came of my situation. I am now truly saved and have a much closer relationship with God because it is founded on truth and not the teachings of the IFB.

Finally, we must remember that bitterness and forgiveness are not necessarily opposites. It is not necessarily true that one hasn’t forgiven if one is bitter. And forgiveness doesn’t mean that the bitterness will automatically end. These are two separate issues and the Bible doesn’t say that if you forgive you will not have bitterness and vise versa. The IFB teaches this, but it’s not in the bible – at least I can’t find it anywhere in the Bible.

I often refer to the IFB as “cult like” or “cultish” and I receive great condemnation from IFBers as a result. This post is being written to set the record straight and to provide a little more detail about what I mean by “cult like” or “cultish”.

Let’s first look at the definition of “cult”. The Random House Dictionary defines a cult as: 1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. 2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers 3. the object of such devotion 4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. 5. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols. 6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. 7. the members of such a religion or sect. 8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

In case you didn’t notice, the definitions are pretty broad. The term “cult” can be a bit ambiguous and is often open to individual interpretation. As a result I will try to narrow down the definitions and streamline my focus. I would like to focus on definitions numbered 1, 2, 4 and 6.

We all know of the particular cults that have come and gone. One of the more famous cults was the Branch Davidian cult in Waco Texas lead by David Koresh. If you aren’t familiar with it I would encourage you to look them up. It’s pretty interesting. Basically, David Koresh lead a group of people to their deaths because of a false ideology and set of beliefs that was unorthodox, extremist AND with members living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader, (see definition 6).

The only reason I mention David Koresh in this context is to set apart what we typically think of as a cult. The Branch Davidians characterized ALL the stipulations of definition 6 above so this is an easy one to spot. Organizations like the IFB are not so easy to spot and often have subtle variations of definition 6 – the one we typically think of when we hear the word cult – or they are purposefully deceptive about their status in society in order to deceive people into joining their group (don’t get all defensive, I’m just using deception as an example of a subtle difference to distinguish what we think we know a cult to be and what a cult really is).

Yes, I know that the IFB doesn’t EXACTLY fit definition 6 so before you decide that you want to shoot me (or at least leave this webpage) read on because I’m going to tell you why I think that the IFB fits the definition of a cult.

In a way, ALL belief systems START out as a cult by the definition of 6 above. Just think about the way Jesus must have been portrayed in his society during the time of his ministry. Do you think unorthodox, unscientific, charismatic, extremist, etc. would be words the Pharisees and people of his day used to describe him? You bet they would. Today Christianity is one of the largest religions in the world, but I think that in its early stages people might have looked at Christians as members of a cult as defined by definition 6 above.

But as you can see, the definition of a cult is NOT limited to simply definition 6. Like I said, my focus will also be on definition numbers 1, 2 and 4. Let me repeat them in case you forgot. 1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. 2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers 4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. Upon HONEST inspection can you really read those definitions as say the IFB isn’t a cult according to those definitions? If not you are either delusional, extremely self deceptive or so enmeshed with the IFB that you simply can’t see it.

Yes, I know that I’m partially playing a semantics game here, but that’s why I use the term “cult like” or “cultish” instead of calling the IFB a cult outright. In the BROADIST sense we could certainly see how the IFB ACTS like a cult, in some ways, when looking at definition 6. We often see IFBers promoting the idea that we are to be “separate” (living outside conventional society), “independent” – not belonging to an over seeing body of leadership and following the leadership of the local church pastor (under the direction of a charismatic leader). We can see that the IFB promotes misinterpretations of scripture as fact – as evidenced on this site and many others (religion or sect considered to be false). We see that the IFB promotes the idea of fundamentalism (extremist) in many ways such as women wearing skirts, not going to movies or dances, etc (unorthodox) (these are simply to provide examples and are not by any means all inclusive). However, in the TRUEST sense of the word the IFB doesn’t ESACTLY fit the definition of a cult and if definition 6 above were the ONLY definition we had then I think I would have a harder time convincing people that the IFB is cultish or cult like.

However, understanding that the IFB does indeed fit SOME of what definition 6 refers to and understanding that definition 6 is NOT THE ONLY DEFINITION that’s given for a cult we must logically conclude that not all cults can be boiled down to just ones that fit definition 6. We still have seven other definitions, four of which mention the terms “religion” and/or “sect”. This is too significant to ignore.

Now, again, I play word games here, but for good reason (there are times when arguments of semantics are relevant). Since we can’t, in good conscience, call the IFB a cult, according to definition 6 – again which is what most people think of when the term cult is mentioned and according to what we as a society have come to understand a cult to be – and the IFB does display some cult like or cultish characteristics, then we need to consider the other definitions of a cult and come to a logical conclusion about this matter.

So let’s just take each definition and see if the IFB fits the description. First, definition 1: 1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. The IFB has distinct rites and ceremonies that set it apart from all other denominations. This is interesting because the IFB WANTS to be considered “set apart” yet they refuse to acknowledge the consequence of this line of thinking, which is the perception of cult like atmosphere. The IFB as a whole, has distinct features, traditions and beliefs that set it apart from other denominations (I know some of the IFBers reading this will object to the IFB being called a denomination, but that isn’t the focus of this article so please read the article on Independent Deception for more information about that topic). The simple fact that IFBers considers themselves as “Independent” and “Fundamental” (separated from all else in Christianity) lends credence to this definition.

Second, definition 2: 2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers. Many will read this definition and conveniently ignore the “OR” in it. The veneration doesn’t necessarily have to be a person, although one could easily argue the IFB’s veneration of the local church’s pastor. The main reverence and focus of the IFB is their unique way of doing church which, according to them, is the right way and everyone else is wrong. The IFB way of doing church has become the idol around which life revolves. The IFB will deny this of course, but those of us who have come out of the IFB can understand why. The IFB has become so good at defending their way of doing church that people can no longer see past the deception. IFBers have come to venerate the ideals of the IFB which has lead to those outside of the IFB seeing them as a cult.

Finally, definition 4: 4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. Again we see here that the IFB is a group or sect that has very strong bonds to a particular way of doing church. The IFB fits the definition of a cult by its regard for and reverence towards particular traditions, beliefs and teachings that are currently considered by most in Christianity to be unorthodox and extreme.

So it is with this in mind that we see the IFB could certainly fit the description of a cult, however, I have chosen to use the term “cultish” or “cult like” in order to show some respect to the system and the individuals that make up the IFB. When I use the terms “cultish” or “cult like” I’m referring to the characteristics of the IFB that make is closely resemble a cult.

Update:

After writing this article and getting a few comments and some rather nasty emails, I realized that a little more clarification would be needed to help avert misunderstandings. As I’ve said multiple times throughout this site, I’m not trying to paint all Independent Fundamental Baptists with the same brush nor am I making sweeping generalizations (by the way, comments that accuse me of sweeping generalizations will not be responded to by this author since I’ve clearly answered this accusation here and elsewhere on the site. Please read thoroughly before you make such an accusatory comment). It is up to the reader to determine if their church has such characteristics. I simply urge you to read with an open mind and consider the possibility.

Now, having said that, it’s important that you know that I realize that the term cult is somewhat ambiguous, but cults are often defined by how much CONTROL the group and/or group leader tries to have over it’s members.

According to the International Cultic Studies Association and cult expert Steve Hassan, areas of the cult member’s life such as thoughts, behaviors, emotions and information are controlled so that the member is kept in strict conformity. Based on this, I’ve devised a little summary of how the IFB acts in such ways to control the congregation.

Please consider the following aspects of a cult as I try to help you understand their fit among the IFB.

Control over Emotions:

In a cult, a normal range of emotions is discouraged and often not allowed. In my IFB experience, if you aren’t happy then there is something wrong in your relationship with God. If you are depressed, for example, then there is sin in your life.

Use of guilt tactics is another example of the IFB’s control over emotions. This is often seen by excessive use of what I call “sin language” (not SIGN language, but SIN language). According to the IFB, you are sinning if you don’t do church the way the IFB has determined that a Christian should. This is especially true when it comes to paying tithes. For example, “If you aren’t tithing then you are robbing God. How can a good Christian rob God?!?!?!” How many times have you heard that one? I heard it almost every week and sometimes three or four times a week when the pastor did a sermon series on tithing.

Another popular tactic of the IFB in this category is pressuring its members to perform soul winning activities. A high focus on bringing in new members is a classis cult emphasis and was very prevalent in the IFB.

Control over Thought:

Rigid, inflexible and all or nothing thinking (more commonly known as black and white thinking) where issues are either right or wrong and no room is given for a middle ground or grey areas is a sure sign of a cult. This is very strong among the IFB.

The IFB effectively discourages critical thinking, negative thoughts and thinking that originates independent of the group. The IFB encourages the use of ONLY positive thinking and speaking. Hassan shares that this is often done by infusing “thought-terminating clichés”…which “constrict rather than expand understanding”…and “function to reduce complexities of experience into trite, platitudinous ‘buzz words’”.*

“Pray about it” is an example that sticks in my mind. When I would have a dilemma or life issue the advice was simply “pray about it”. This might not be the best example, but if simply praying about it was helpful I wouldn’t have been having trouble in the first place since I’d been praying about it for years.

We all know the typical Christian clichés that are used among the Christian community, but the IFB takes this to a cultish level, by restricting other forms of thought and communication.

Control over Information:

In a cult, attending another church or group is often discouraged. The message that only the IFB has the truth and if you attend another type of church you can’t get saved or you are further from God then if you attended an IFB is evidence of this characteristic.

The KJV only issue is a perfect example of this among the IFB. If one doesn’t understand the KJV then they are to rely on the Pastor or a “more mature” Christian in the IFB to interpret it for them.

Individual interpretation of scripture is discouraged. Questioning or disagreeing with what the IFB teaches is discouraged. One should accept what the pastor or Sunday school teacher says with unwavering, unquestioning acceptance is the prevailing message among the IFB.

In the IFB, pastors are trained by IFB educators and seminaries. Information is tightly controlled among the leader instruction. The church I grew up in had a “Baptist Bible Institute” which trained all the pastors and Sunday school teachers. One couldn’t serve unless he/she went through that unique training program. This is plain and simple mind control.

Another evident issue in this category is limited access to alternate information. Member access to non-IFB literature is discouraged and/or prevented.

The three mentioned above are often more subtle. The more obvious one is Control over Behaviors:

Control over what to do, where to go and who to associate with is common among cults and we see this among the IFB in the obvious “standards” that the IFB has set regarding dress, hair style, music, movies, food/beverage consumption and associated friends (among many others).

An example from my experience is vacation time. We were taught to never miss church even for vacation. I always remember my parents scheduling family vacations to end on Saturday so that we could be in church on Sunday. What confused me, though, was that the pastor always took a vacation that lasted through Sunday.

Being pressured to make sacrifices is another form of controlling behaviors. We see this among the IFB as well in the form of monetary and time commitments.

Well, I hope this information has been helpful. For more information on cults visit: www.icsahome.com and www.freedomofmind.com/bite/

* Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves

Independent deception

I get so many comments and emails complaining that the IFB can’t be considered a denomination because they are “Independent” Fundamental Baptists with an obvious emphasis on the “independent” part. I really can’t believe the number if people who take offense to my calling the IFB a denomination. Well, I guess I can believe it because I was taught this as well in my IFB experience. I guess it was just unexpected how many emails and comments I would get related to the defense of the IFB as “Independent”. There are so many thing’s wrong with the IFB that this seems minor in comparison.

I’ve discussed this topic at length with several folks who have asked me for a debate. The same argument keeps coming up over and over again, so I thought I’d write a post explaining my position on this. That way when someone else wants to argue this point I can just refer them to this page and they can take it or leave it.

Lets take the emotions out of the equation. IFBers are emotionally tied to the idea that they are “independent” – free of any governing body, autonomous and self sustaining. If we take the emotions out of the equation we can think logically about it and apply some much needed critical thinking I think we will see that this idea of “independence” is really nothing more than slight of hand.

The IFB teaches, as I was taught when I was in the throws of this cult-like denomination, that because they are “Independent” they are somehow exempt from scrutiny because each church operates and governs itself “independently” from any other organization or church. As an example, a recent visitor commented on the ABC’s 20/20 investigation of the IFB by stating

“I find it ironic that the term IFB is used rather than the whole name, INDEPENDENT Fundamental Baptist. The key word is Independent. You cannot judge all Independent Baptist churches by one. church because they are INDEPENDENT of each other.”

This is a perfect example of the thinking of the IFB. This is nothing more than mere hand waving and it is crammed down the throats of every IFB congregation (well, OK, MOST IFB congregations – there are you happy those of you who would blame me for sweeping generalizations?).

Personally, I think this issue is a con game. It’s a slight of hand misdirection to keep people from thinking that the IFB as a whole – the IFB “group” for lack of a better term – is connected in many ways (which I will talk about so keep reading). I also think it’s this is an area of focus for leaders so that other major issues are kept in the background, unnoticed – or what we call in Philosophy 101, a Red Herring fallacy.

Majoring on the minors

I plan to write an article on the topic of “majoring on the minors” at a later date, but this issue can serve as an example for now. The logical side of me wonders if the IFB focuses on this issue to distract from more pressing issues. This is certainly evident on this site. Out of all the problems and horror stories presented on this site, the most frequent complaint I get is this issue of calling the IFB a denomination.

Child sexual abuse, mental manipulation, financial cons/scams (i.e., tithing), etc. all happen withing the IFB and people are worried about me calling the IFB a denomination. If that’s not telling about the false teachings and brainwashing that happens withing the IFB I honestly don’t know what is.

So lets think logically about this for a moment. The definition of a denomination is simply “a religious group, usually including many local churches…” and “a name or designation, especially one for a class of things” The American Heritage Dictionary. According to those definitions, the IFB would be considered a denomination.

But lets not only step outside of our emotions for a moment, lets even go a step further and step outside of the dictionary definition of a denomination and think completely logically for a moment. If there are several church/religious meeting congregations (to use a church word) around the country that teach similar beliefs, traditions, doctrines, etc., and each use THE SAME NAME to identify themselves, what else would you call it? a group? a congregation?, a union?, an organization? or can we not just use the typical word that’s used in our society to identify a like minded group of people with a religious preference – a denomination?

Logic dictates that ultimately this is nothing more than a semantics game that the IFBer use. The word “Independent” is really a misnomer if you think logically about it.

If a person accused me of sweeping generalizations I must insist that it is not me who is making the comparison. As already stated on this site, I’m simply sharing my experiences. So the association with all things IFB is the IFBer’s association not mine. A person who is an Independent Fundamental Baptist calls himself/herself such because they WANT to associate with a certain set of beliefs and values. IFBers are associating with the IFB because that’s what they WANT to be – and for all reasons that they have. This is THEIR association not mine. I didn’t choose that association for them.

The same is true for a particular church. If a particular church or congregation call themselves Independent Fundamental Baptist then they are associating with all that represents an Independent Fundamental Baptist church. That’s their association not mine.

One disgruntled visitor picked a fight about this topic with me and stated

“The “I” in IFB is supposed to stand for independent. Therefore we are not or at least are not supposed to be chained or linked together in any way. The idea of multiple Churches banding together a pooling their financial and clergical resources together is absolutely in no way scriptural. This idea was originally started by the Roman Catholic Church and due to the Protestant reformation these flawed and unbiblical practices carried on with those who left the Catholic Church. I can say for fact though that a true IFB Church does not claim to be Protestant because we were never in anyway associated with the RCC.”

This simply isn’t true. The IFB would like you to think that of course, but most IFB churches are started as a “sister or daughter church” of another IFB church. My family helped start three of them. They weren’t allowed to operate unless they did things the exact same way as the “sending” church. There may not be a national convention that each church answers to or a corporate identity, but there is certainly not “independence” in the sense that the IFB would have you think. The term “Independent” is truly a misnomer. The idea that the IFB church is “independent” is a blatant lie at best and manipulation at worst.

The IFB really is a brand – for lack of a better term. To think otherwise is nothing short of delusional. If a church doesn’t want the association of Independent, Fundamental, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian or whatever, then they shouldn’t associate as such. The error in association is the church’s not mine. This isn’t blame shifting, but simple common sense. If a church calls itself Independent Fundamental Baptist then it needs to be willing to accept the associations that go along with it – both good and bad.

*****************************************

Update:

It came to my attention by an astute reader that there actually does exist a “fellowship” of Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches in each individual state. Upon further investigation I’ve found at least 42 states have an organizational body called a “Fellowship of Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches” and two Global organizations.

The first one is the Global Independent Fundamental Baptist Fellowship www.gifb.org and the second one is the Independent Fundamental Baptist International www.fbfi.org.

So much for “Independent” eh?

It would be interesting some day to do a comparison of Arv Edgworth’s arguments about the IFB being “independent from any organizational body” and the mission of those global/international “fellowships”.

By the way, isn’t it interesting to see the word play here? The use of “fellowship” is a nice way to disguise an organizational body isn’t it? Hmmm…

I don’t have much to say about this issue except to give my story of how I came to realize this deception from the Independent Fundamental Baptist Church.

The IFB are notorious for claiming the importance of attending a “Bible Believing, Bible Preaching” church. The implication, of course, is that you will be attending a “Bible Believing, bible Preaching” church ONLY if you attend an IFB church. It was never overtly stated, but implied that if you didn’t attend an IFB church then you weren’t attending a “Bible Believing, Bible Preaching” church.

They never used scripture to defend this, just the idea that only the IFB truly believe and teach the Bible. I remember during my final year as an IFB discussing this with a trusted friend who had already come out of the IFB. We were discussing the differences among our churches and I had mentioned the importance of attending a “Bible believing, Bible preaching” church.

Her response was simple, but remarkably profound for me and began the change in my thinking that was so desperately needed. She simply said: “Do you really think that I don’t believe the Bible?” That simple question was enough to get me thinking about this subtle, but extremely manipulative idea that the IFB holds the patent on truth, that somehow only they truly believe the Bible. Honestly I had never thought about it before. I just accepted that the IFB was the ONLY source of truth. I was truly brainwashed into thinking this lie.

This is directly tied to the IFB’s incessant insistence that the KJV is the only version that is truly God’s word. The idea is that other churches/denominations don’t use the KJV therefore they aren’t preaching or teaching the truth.

This deception is directly tied to the idea that one must go to church as well and that that church should be an IFB church otherwise you aren’t really getting Biblical truth. I plan to talk about church attendance in a future post.

I wish all who read this and have been fed the lie that the IFB is the only source of Biblical truth and that if you don’t attend an IFB then you aren’t really hearing the truth to reconsider. You will be – or perhaps have been – told that if you don’t attend an IFB church that you aren’t really a “Bible Believing” Christian. This is a lie and a deception. Because of the subtle nature in which the IFB promotes this idea, this deception is very abusive and dangerous. Be aware of it and I encourage you to questions your pastor should he ever mention this idea to you.

I Corinthians 14:33 has long been misinterpreted by the IFB leading to a very dangerous deception.

I was taught in my IFB experience that when making a decision God would give me peace about the right direction and I Corinthians 14:33 was always quoted to justify the idea. The KJV writes: “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”

I remember several big decisions in my life where I was very confused and my parents and pastor would always tell me, “God is not the author of confusion, Satan is the one confusing you”. Then they would proceed to tell me that God would give me peace about which direction to take. (Then they would give a subtle hint that the one God would give me peace about is the one that fit more inline with the teachings of the IFB, but that’s for another post).

There are several things to point out about this topic that are important to point out and be aware of. The first thing to notice is the mis-interpretation of the KJV in this verse. The KJV incorrectly interprets the this verse by using the word “confusion”. The correct interpretation should be “disorder” rather than “confusion”. When interpreted correctly we see that “God is not the author of DISORDER“. The NLT, by the way, gets it right: “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the meetings of God’s holy people.”

The second thing to consider is the context of the entire passage. Paul is instructing the church at Corinth about the order of their worship services. He is giving them instructions so that their worship would be orderly. It’s pretty clear from the context that Paul is talking about God’s desire for us to be orderly.

It’s important for the IFB to stop making this deception. There are times when we all will be confused about things and even if we are confused it’s not because Satan is confusing us nor is it because we don’t have peace from God about a particular situation. This idea of God giving us peace about the decision He wants us to make is unfounded and unscriptural.

Many people suffer because they have a difficult time finding peace in certain situations. There are, however, situations where peace can’t be found. That doesn’t mean God isn’t involved. I’m saddened by this abusive teaching and misunderstanding of God and I Corinthians 14:33. Please remember, when you are facing a difficult decision or you are confused about a path of life and someone tells you “God is not the author of confusion” they are not really understanding what they are saying.

On a related note the IFB has trumped up the idea that the mental illness of anxiety is related to “being out of God’s will” because of this verse. They will tell you that if you are anxious or confused that you have Satan’s influence on you and that you need to “get right with God since He is not the author of confusion.” Be very careful to make sure you understand that this isn’t true.

I know that this is a strange title for a post, but I was hoping it would get your attention. This post is really about an email exchange from an IFB “Evangelist” named Arv Edgeworth and I would love for everyone to read it. I get quite a bit of email from IFBers who are angry with me and my site, but this particular email exchange is such a good example of what I write about on this site that I just had to make a separate post for it.

This is from an exchange with an Evangelist in the IFB camp with a Doctorate in a ministry related field who first contacted me to share the “truth” about the KJV. His name is Arv Edgeworth and he claims to be an evangelist with much experience and knowledge and even has his own website at www.truthandscience.net

As you can see from the exchange, it was quite unproductive as far as our communication went. I did my best to communicate my point of view and he did his best to robotically preach at me.  My attempts to redirect his preaching, assumptions and attacks were met with hand waving and resistance beyond my capability to restore. I finally had to cut him off because of his anger and verbal abuse towards me.

The post you will read below is our entire discussion, word for word, raw and unedited.

Pleased be WARNED!!! This isn’t for the faint of heart. If you experience PTSD symptoms from flaming and written words then please do NOT read this until you are ready to tolerate the type of information presented here.

I will simply post the messages starting with Arv’s initial contact and ending with the most recent email. Some of the replies got messy in the sense that they started to run together (you will see why as you read it) so I tried to indicate who is writing and what the scenario is. Hopefully that will make it less confusing. To try and make it even less confusing, I will post MY replies in red so that they stand out.

This is the original email sent from Arv:

I’m not sure where you got most of your information about Bible versions, but someone has been lying to you, and that can be proven. It is quite obvious you have not read the biographies of the King James translators, nor are you familiar with the backgrounds of Westcott and Hort. If you would actually like to know the truth (which I doubt) please contact me.

Hi Arv,

Most of the resources we used are listed in the Bibliography below the article.

Ultimately, the article is about KJV Onlyism. Information about the translators of the KJV and Wescott and Hort are not included simply because of logistical reasons. However, you are welcome to share any information you think would be helpful.

Steve

Hi Steve,

I am an evangelist. In the last 14 years I have spoken in over 300 independent, fundamental Baptist churches in 25 different states. I have spent a great deal of time discussing doctrinal issues with those pastors. I have also discussed standards of dress and conduct with them. I send out a newsletter to about 2100 independent, fundamental, Baptist churches nation-wide.

Bible Versions
At different times I have been on both sides of the fence on this issue. It would be good for you to read the biographies of the King James translators. I would suggest: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/transtoc.htm. It also has much information about the translation process. This website has much information about Westcott and Hort. By the way, they had nothing to do with the KJV that we use today.

Something to think about. In Genesis 3, the first statement recorded for Satan was him asking the question: “Yea, hath God said?” Do you think Satan might want to attack what God has said or promised? Would it be to his advantage to corrupt the Word of God? If he could water down the gospel in some way, or attack the deity of Christ for example, how do you think he might go about that?

To give just a brief background of the manuscript issue: In the 4th century Constantine ordered a man by the name of Eusebius to translate 50 bibles for him and gave him a set of changes he wanted him to make to produce a bible that would be acceptable to a wide range of people. Eusebius had been a disciple of a man named Origen, who had many heretical beliefs himself. It appears from the manuscripts found that are believed to belong to that group, that Eusebius later added many changes of his own, with each copy containing a few more changes. Westcott and Hort hated the Textus Receptus and wanted to come up with something to replace it (I can give you the actual quote of them saying that if you would like). Using two manuscripts that are believed to be two of the 50 that Constantine ordered to be made, Westcott and Hort compiled a new manuscript that had not existed previous to this. The two manuscripts were the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. A very liberal German scholar, Count Tischendorf, studied both manuscripts and came to the conclusion they were both written by the same man, and he also believed it was Eusebius. From the Westcott and Hort manuscript come all the modern versions today. The NKJV was supposedly translated from the Textus Receptus, but later many changes were made based on the Westcott and Hort.

The majority of IFB pastors I know would not take the position that someone could not be saved with a modern version. That is an extreme minority position. Although they were translated from corrupted manuscripts, most of them still contain enough of the gospel that someone could get saved, and often do.

Dress Standards
I agree with you to a certain extent about extreme dress standards, but I think you would agree that each pastor has a responsibility to teach his personal convictions about what the standards should be in his own church. I believe God would hold him accountable if immodesty was allowed in the worship services or church activities. The Bible instructs us to dress in modest apparel, but there might be a difference of convictions as to what that exactly means.

Steve, something you need to keep in mind is the autonomy of the local church. Each local church is to govern themselves concerning doctrinal beliefs and matters of practice. One of my pet peeves is when certain pastors set themselves up as a little Pope in their particular “camp,” and they expect other churches in their camp to follow their lead.

I’ll give you an example of that. I speak on the creation versus evolution issue, one pastor contacted me about speaking in his church. The first thing he wanted to know was what my dress standards were, if I wore facial hair, etc. (try to figure that one out by the way, no facial hair?). I told the pastor he was not my pastor, and it was not his position to inform me as to what my convictions were to be in those areas, he was undermining the autonomy of the local church, as I was accountable to the leadership of my own pastor, as well as my personal convictions in those areas, but I would certainly be respectful of his convictions and would be sensitive to that so as not to cause problems in his church if he would decide to have me speak there (he didn’t).

There are certain “camps” that really put more emphasis on outward appearance than they do doctrinal issues. That is unfortunate, and unscriptural.

Music In The Church
A couple things to keep in mind about music. The Bible seems to indicate that was Satan’s area of expertise in heaven. There is also a difference between the words and the music itself. It is a scientific fact that notes can be arranged in a way to affect people’s moods, etc. and you can actually slow a person’s heart rate down or speed it up. What if a piece of music had no words? People who have expertise in that area can look at a piece of sheet music and tell you if it is good music or bad music, and what affect it will have on you psychologically. Just making you feel good isn’t enough. A beat or rhythm that appeals to our flesh may not be the one that uplifts us spiritually. We need to be conscious of the battle going on between our old nature and our new nature, and try to be sensitive as to what pleases God and what does not.

Grace
This is not an excuse to live any way we want to. Let me give you a good biblical application of grace. Titus 2:11-12 says: “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;” The proper result of grace in a Christian’s life should cause us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world. That is what a proper understanding of grace should teach us. An understanding of grace that allows for worldly lusts or ungodliness in one’s conduct would be an improper application of what grace means or should produce in our life.

The Church
You touched on this on your website, but understand that Baptists are the only group that does not trace its roots back to some man or woman in the last 1700 years. But the true body of Christ is made up of every truly born again Christian regardless of what denomination they might be a part of, or even if they attend a church or not.

Steve, be very careful as to why you accept a certain teaching or reject it. We might not like a doctrinal position, but is it taught in the Bible? Examine your reasoning as to why you may or may not like the teachings of fundamental Baptists. The majority I am acquainted with are not as you picture them on your website. Fundamental Baptists are not a cult, although there are a few here and there that are a bit scary, I’ll give you that. You were not abused because you were taught to use the King James Bible, although there are extreme positions in that area. You were not abused because you were in a church that believed tithing was scriptural. You were not abused if the pastor had personal convictions that women should not wear pants. Actually, the only apparel mentioned for men was skirts. You don’t hear that taught much, accept maybe in Scotland.

My pastor teaches wearing what is appropriate for the occasion. I personally like it when ladies wear skirts and dresses to church. Some of our bus ladies don’t even own a dress or skirt. Nobody would ever say a thing, unless their clothing was too revealing. As a man with a sin nature, I am glad there are some dress standards that people seem to go by, although not much is said about it. If the ladies play softball, culottes are just not modest. If the church doesn’t want them wearing lose-fitting ball pants, let them join a Ping-Pong league or something.

Although you might not agree with everything I have said, I hope you will give it some consideration. Check out my website at: www.truthandscience.net. Take care my brother.

In His Service,
Dr. Arv Edgeworth

Hi Arv,

I certainly appreciate you taking the time to share this information. I must admit that I’m a bit disappointed though. You said that you would share “truth”, but all I see is opinion and hearsay. What you share is nothing that I haven’t heard preached at me 1000 times before in my IFB experience. I was really hoping that you would share new information, but it really feels to me that you are just regurgitating what you’ve learned rather than truly exploring the “truth”.

Along with the above mentioned issues, there are several things that I find rather disturbing about what you write, but before I spend time countering your arguments, let me ask if you really want to have a discussion about this. In my experience people will write to berate and attack me about the information I provide and when I take the time to write back in defense of my position I never hear back. So do you want to have a discussion or are you just interested in sharing your point of view?

Either way, please let me know.

Thanks again,
Steve

Hi Steve,

If you want any kind of discussion it will have to be about facts, and not just your opinion based on your personal experience, which is what most of your website is. When you state that we got our current KJV from Westcott and Hort, how exactly did they pull that off since their text came about in 1881?

Arv

Before I had a chance to reply, along comes…

Hi Steve,

I would like you to clarify a few things for me before or if we continue:

1. You said you were hoping for something new from me, what I told you was the same things you had heard 1000 times. You said you were taught you can only be saved with the KJV, I said just the opposite. You said you were taught women couldn’t wear pants, I said the opposite. If you were taught one thing, And I said the opposite, how exactly could what I said be the same thing you had heard 1000 times. Things that are different are not the same.

2. You say you are not interested in my sharing with you my point of view. If you are only interested in your own point of view, why have a discussion? How exactly do we have a discussion if only one point of view will be considered? Do you consider what you believe to be more than just your point of view? Could you explain that please? You have already indicated that you do not consider my opinion as being “truth.”

3. You indicate what I say is just opinion and hearsay, but what you say isn’t. You claim you are interested in exploring “truth.” I have to ask you this question: Where do you feel the Word of God stands in all of this? Do you believe the Word of God is absolute truth? If you had to choose between man’s opinions or the Word of God, which would you choose? Do you believe your interpretation of scripture is infallible? What does biblical inspiration mean to you exactly?

4. You say you want to hear something new. What if some of the things you were taught are actually the truth? Are you open to that possibility, or are you completely closed-minded as to that possibility? Maybe you aren’t as interested in the “truth” as you claim.

5. You indicate if a church teaches that modern Bible versions are translated from corrupted texts, and Christian women should not wear pants, and Christians should tithe, and not listen to Christian Rock they are a cult. It seems that what you are requiring is for your followers to believe exactly like you do in those areas. How exactly is that different from the group that you are attacking? You claim they attack those that don’t believe like they do, you have set up a website to do the same thing. If some day someone broke away from your teachings and started using the KJV for example and started tithing, would they consider your group a cult? What exactly is the difference?

By the way, I hate untruth with a Passion. I have had a passion for truth my whole life. If you are not really interested in what the truth is, but just in promoting your own point of view, don’t waste both of our time. There are too many people out there that actually want to know the truth. So far I have real doubts about you.

In Search of the Truth,
Arv Edgeworth

Hi Arv,

I really wanted to reply to what you wrote in your [original] message, but with two new messages I’ll skip that for now and I’ll reply to this one first since it is the first of your two new messages. (I’m being over wordy because it’s difficult to communicate via email. Lack of verbal, visual and body language queues often leave people mistaken about my intentions and I don’t want you to get the wrong impression.) I really am interested in what you have to say.

As we proceed, please remember that YOU were the one who initiated contact and said that YOU would provide the “truth”. I told you that most of what you wrote seemed like opinion and hearsay because I saw little evidence of truth in what you wrote. When I asked for it again you wrote back with two messages both of which conveniently deflected the focus onto me leaving me with still the unanswered question about what “truth” YOU are trying to share. I’m happy though to reply to whatever you would like to know about me and my point of view.

I’m interested in the truth as well, however, it is impossible to discuss ONLY truth here. We are ultimately talking about issues of value. In philosophy, we call a sole focus on truth/fact when it comes to issues of value a Naturalistic Fallacy. I’ll spare you the lecture on logical fallacies. You can research it if you wish. But ultimately, it will be a difficult discussion if we focus only on fact since statements of value cannot be reached by premises of fact alone.

Now having said that, to answer your question, I never said that “we got our current KJV from Westcott and Hort”. The current KJV version (which is at least the 4th revision of the 1611 KJV) is based on the work that Westcott and Hort did. In other words, Westcott and Hort is part of the heritage of the current version of the KJV that we have today. This is stated very clearly on the site. Please re-read what I’ve written there if you find yourself confused. There are a lot of scholars who report this. You can find more information about where we got that information in the Bibliography section under the article.

Steve

This is where it may get confusing for the reader. Arv was refusing to stick to one topic so I had to reply paragraph by paragraph to keep from further confusion. Arv’s words are in black and mine are in red.

Hi Arv,

Please see my reply to your questions below in red text.

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Arv Edgeworth wrote:

Hi Steve,

I would like you to clarify a few things for me before or if we continue:

1. You said you were hoping for something new from me, what I told you was the same things you had heard 1000 times. You said you were taught you can only be saved with the KJV, I said just the opposite. You said you were taught women couldn’t wear pants, I said the opposite. If you were taught one thing, And I said the opposite, how exactly could what I said be the same thing you had heard 1000 times. Things that are different are not the same.

You don’t know everything I was taught and I never said that I was ONLY taught the opposite of what you wrote. Thousands of people have written to me and said almost the exact same things you’ve said. It’s nothing new to me.

2. You say you are not interested in my sharing with you my point of view. If you are only interested in your own point of view, why have a discussion? How exactly do we have a discussion if only one point of view will be considered? Do you consider what you believe to be more than just your point of view? Could you explain that please? You have already indicated that you do not consider my opinion as being “truth.”

I never said that I’m not interested in you sharing your point of view. You said that you would be sharing “truth”. I told you that most of what you wrote seemed like opinion and hearsay because I saw little evidence of truth in what you wrote. So help me out. Please separate out your opinion from the “truth”.

3. You indicate what I say is just opinion and hearsay, but what you say isn’t. You claim you are interested in exploring “truth.” I have to ask you this question: Where do you feel the Word of God stands in all of this? Do you believe the Word of God is absolute truth? If you had to choose between man’s opinions or the Word of God, which would you choose? Do you believe your interpretation of scripture is infallible? What does biblical inspiration mean to you exactly?

You said that YOU would be sharing “truth”. If you want to share “truth” then share it. I’m more than interested in the truth.

To answer your questions:

I’m not sure what you mean by “where do you feel the Word of God stands in all of this?” That question is too vague to answer. Clarification would be appreciated.

I believe the Word of God contains absolute truths and is itself completely true. This, however, is were discussions on “truth” become blurred. We are trying to derive conclusions of value from fact alone. It doesn’t work. Unfortunately it isn’t as simple as “is the Word of God absolute truth” because the Word of God contains more than just absolute truth. It contains commands, principles, promises, precepts, etc. some of which are open to personal conviction (reference 1 Corinthians 10)

I would choose the Word of God. Which is why I question whether what you share is “truth” or opinion. What scripture are you using to support your beliefs and are you sure you are interpreting them properly?

No, I do not believe my interpretation of scripture is infallible.

Biblical inspiration means that God used human beings to communicate his thoughts through the written Word of God.

4. You say you want to hear something new. What if some of the things you were taught are actually the truth? Are you open to that possibility, or are you completely closed-minded as to that possibility? Maybe you aren’t as interested in the “truth” as you claim.

I never said that I wanted to hear something new. I was just hoping (expecting is probably a better term to use) something different from you since you implied that you had new information to share.

Some of the things I was taught are true. I don’t deny that.

5. You indicate if a church teaches that modern Bible versions are translated from corrupted texts, and Christian women should not wear pants, and Christians should tithe, and not listen to Christian Rock they are a cult. It seems that what you are requiring is for your followers to believe exactly like you do in those areas. How exactly is that different from the group that you are attacking? You claim they attack those that don’t believe like they do, you have set up a website to do the same thing. If some day someone broke away from your teachings and started using the KJV for example and started tithing, would they consider your group a cult? What exactly is the difference?

No, that’s not what I said or implied. Please re-read the section of the site where I talk about the IFB showing signs of cultish practices (you can find it on the “About This Site” page).

I don’t have “followers” and I don’t require anyone to do anything. I don’t teach others and I don’t have a church where I preach what I believe. I don’t attack anyone or anything. I’m simply sharing my experiences.

The difference is that I am but one person sharing some thoughts and experiences, I’m not a “group”. The IFB is a powerful organization filled with lies, manipulations and abuse – some of which are exposed on my site with more to come.

By the way, I hate untruth with a Passion. I have had a passion for truth my whole life. If you are not really interested in what the truth is, but just in promoting your own point of view, don’t waste both of our time. There are too many people out there that actually want to know the truth. So far I have real doubts about you.

Me too.

Now, I’ve answered your questions and put up with your attacks. Will you please share the “truth” that you say you have?

You have doubts about me because you haven’t taken the time to get to know me or my experiences. You’ve come to me with pre-conceived ideas about who I am and what I’m about. I’ve entertained your assumptions and false assertions in the hopes that we can have a serious discussion and that you would, in your wisdom, share something that would restore my hope in the IFB. I’m still waiting.

Steve

The same here. Before I had a chance to reply to an email Arv sent he promptly sent two more. Having replied to the two new emails, I’m now backtracking and trying to address that other email. Here it is…

Hi Arv,

I decided to just go ahead and send this to you. I worked on it so I figured I might as well send it. My responses are in red text below. For what it’s worth…

Steve

Hi Steve,

I am an evangelist. In the last 14 years I have spoken in over 300 independent, fundamental Baptist churches in 25 different states. I have spent a great deal of time discussing doctrinal issues with those pastors. I have also discussed standards of dress and conduct with them. I send out a newsletter to about 2100 independent, fundamental, Baptist churches nation-wide.

I would be more interested in your training and education. Being an evangelist says nothing to me except that your work is to evangelize. Where do you get your beliefs? How have you come to the knowledge you have? Are you following the “truth”, as you call it, or simply following what you’ve been taught? Is your training and education well rounded or is it simply passed down information from the IFB? I would be a bit leery about someone who is simply passing on information about what they have learned in a particular denomination. That is not real truth, it’s simply truth as you know it.

Bible Versions

At different times I have been on both sides of the fence on this issue. It would be good for you to read the biographies of the King James translators. I would suggest: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/transtoc.htm. It also has much information about the translation process. This website has much information about Westcott and Hort. By the way, they had nothing to do with the KJV that we use today.

Westcott and Hort may not have had anything personally to do with the KJV that we use today, but their work helped form the modern KJV that we have today. You could say that the work of Westcott and Hort is part of the heritage of the current version of the KJV that we have today.

Something to think about. In Genesis 3, the first statement recorded for Satan was him asking the question: “Yea, hath God said?” Do you think Satan might want to attack what God has said or promised? Would it be to his advantage to corrupt the Word of God? If he could water down the gospel in some way, or attack the deity of Christ for example, how do you think he might go about that?

Yes, I agree. That’s why I’m against the KJV. It is a corrupt version that is used by Satan to deceive people, especially when it is touted at the “perfect, preserved Word of God”. You can read more about that on my site if you wish.

To give just a brief background of the manuscript issue: In the 4th century Constantine ordered a man by the name of Eusebius to translate 50 bibles for him and gave him a set of changes he wanted him to make to produce a bible that would be acceptable to a wide range of people. Eusebius had been a disciple of a man named Origen, who had many heretical beliefs himself. It appears from the manuscripts found that are believed to belong to that group, that Eusebius later added many changes of his own, with each copy containing a few more changes. Westcott and Hort hated the Textus Receptus and wanted to come up with something to replace it (I can give you the actual quote of them saying that if you would like). Using two manuscripts that are believed to be two of the 50 that Constantine ordered to be made, Westcott and Hort compiled a new manuscript that had not existed previous to this. The two manuscripts were the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. A very liberal German scholar, Count Tischendorf, studied both manuscripts and came to the conclusion they were both written by the same man, and he also believed it was Eusebius. From the Westcott and Hort manuscript come all the modern versions today. The NKJV was supposedly translated from the Textus Receptus, but later many changes were made based on the Westcott and Hort.

Thanks for the info. What is your source? Where did you get this information?

The majority of IFB pastors I know would not take the position that someone could not be saved with a modern version. That is an extreme minority position. Although they were translated from corrupted manuscripts, most of them still contain enough of the gospel that someone could get saved, and often do.

Yet, it’s still a position that abounds in the IFB and it’s a false and dangerous teaching. While the majority of pastors you know would not take that position, it’s important to remember that you do not know the majority of IFB pastors. Also, the newer versions were not translated from corrupted manuscripts. This is a lie (I thought you wanted to share “truth”?) There is information about this on the site with resources to back it up, if you’d like to read it. What is your source for the assertion that “they [modern versions] were translated from corrupted manuscripts? Where did you get that information?

Dress Standards

I agree with you to a certain extent about extreme dress standards, but I think you would agree that each pastor has a responsibility to teach his personal convictions about what the standards should be in his own church. I believe God would hold him accountable if immodesty was allowed in the worship services or church activities. The Bible instructs us to dress in modest apparel, but there might be a difference of convictions as to what that exactly means.

Where did you get this information? What is your source? Where in the Bible does it say that “a pastor is responsible for teaching his personal convictions”? If that’s true I would agree but it’s important to make the distinction that a pastor is supposed to TEACH his personal convictions. A pastor should NOT force his personal convictions on his congregation which is what a lot of IFB pastors do. It’s one thing to teach/share a personal conviction. It’s another thing to force the congregation to adhere to his personal convictions and use those personal convictions to manipulate and deceive his congregation. It’s important to remember that there is a difference between personal convictions, absolutes and preferences. The way we dress is a personal conviction and should not be forced on others.

Steve, something you need to keep in mind is the autonomy of the local church. Each local church is to govern themselves concerning doctrinal beliefs and matters of practice. One of my pet peeves is when certain pastors set themselves up as a little Pope in their particular “camp,” and they expect other churches in their camp to follow their lead.

Where did you get this information? What is your source? The “local church” is not biblical. Can you please show me one passage of scripture that advocates the idea of a “local church” that we know of in today’s society?

I share your pet peeve. It discusses me to know that there are pastors who are so controlling and manipulative.

I’ll give you an example of that. I speak on the creation versus evolution issue, one pastor contacted me about speaking in his church. The first thing he wanted to know was what my dress standards were, if I wore facial hair, etc. (try to figure that one out by the way, no facial hair?). I told the pastor he was not my pastor, and it was not his position to inform me as to what my convictions were to be in those areas, he was undermining the autonomy of the local church, as I was accountable to the leadership of my own pastor, as well as my personal convictions in those areas, but I would certainly be respectful of his convictions and would be sensitive to that so as not to cause problems in his church if he would decide to have me speak there (he didn’t).

There are certain “camps” that really put more emphasis on outward appearance than they do doctrinal issues. That is unfortunate, and unscriptural.

Agreed.

Music In The Church
A couple things to keep in mind about music. The Bible seems to indicate that was Satan’s area of expertise in heaven. There is also a difference between the words and the music itself. It is a scientific fact that notes can be arranged in a way to affect people’s moods, etc. and you can actually slow a person’s heart rate down or speed it up. What if a piece of music had no words? People who have expertise in that area can look at a piece of sheet music and tell you if it is good music or bad music, and what affect it will have on you psychologically. Just making you feel good isn’t enough. A beat or rhythm that appeals to our flesh may not be the one that uplifts us spiritually. We need to be conscious of the battle going on between our old nature and our new nature, and try to be sensitive as to what pleases God and what does not.

Where did you get this information? What is your source? I’m not sure what your point is about this. Are you saying that it’s a sin to have an emotional response to music? Music is amoral. It is neither right nor wrong. I would encourage you to read the passage where David danced before the Lord. He was rebuked by Michal for dancing and the Lord made Michal unable to have children for rebuking David. (See 2 Samuel 6 20-23) David was having an emotional response to what the Lord had done for him and the music helped him express that emotional response before the Lord.

Yes, I agree that it can be used for wrong, but so can food. Does that mean we shouldn’t eat? Music is not inherently evil or good in and of itself. Secondly, why does music only have to affect us spiritually? Are you saying it’s a sin if music affects up physically or emotionally? We are more than just spiritual beings. If music affects us emotionally I think that could be a good thing. Music therapy helps many people who struggle with grief, depression, anxiety, etc.

Grace

This is not an excuse to live any way we want to. Let me give you a good biblical application of grace. Titus 2:11-12 says: “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;” The proper result of grace in a Christian’s life should cause us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world. That is what a proper understanding of grace should teach us. An understanding of grace that allows for worldly lusts or ungodliness in one’s conduct would be an improper application of what grace means or should produce in our life.

I agree (see also Roman’s 6). It’s important to remember, however, that Grace should also not be used to form a doctrine of legalistic righteousness. Grace is undeserved favor in the eyes of God. We have grace because it is a gift not because we earn it by the way we live. Titus 2:11-12 is incorrectly interpreted in the KJV. It’s not grace that teaches us to deny those things, it’s salvation and God and the sanctification process where we learn to be more godly and live correctly. Grace is already present when the sanctification process has begun.

The Church

You touched on this on your website, but understand that Baptists are the only group that does not trace its roots back to some man or woman in the last 1700 years. But the true body of Christ is made up of every truly born again Christian regardless of what denomination they might be a part of, or even if they attend a church or not.

Denominations are not biblical. Denominations are used by Satan to dismember the body of believers – the true church – and cause division among us.

Steve, be very careful as to why you accept a certain teaching or reject it. We might not like a doctrinal position, but is it taught in the Bible? Examine your reasoning as to why you may or may not like the teachings of fundamental Baptists. The majority I am acquainted with are not as you picture them on your website. Fundamental Baptists are not a cult, although there are a few here and there that are a bit scary, I’ll give you that. You were not abused because you were taught to use the King James Bible, although there are extreme positions in that area. You were not abused because you were in a church that believed tithing was scriptural. You were not abused if the pastor had personal convictions that women should not wear pants. Actually, the only apparel mentioned for men was skirts. You don’t hear that taught much, accept maybe in Scotland.

I would advise you the same way. Are you accepting a certain belief because that’s what you’ve always been taught or are you really searching scripture? Examine your reasoning as to why you may or may not like the teachings of churches other than the IFB.

I never claimed that I was abused for the reasons you state.

My pastor teaches wearing what is appropriate for the occasion. I personally like it when ladies wear skirts and dresses to church. Some of our bus ladies don’t even own a dress or skirt. Nobody would ever say a thing, unless their clothing was too revealing. As a man with a sin nature, I am glad there are some dress standards that people seem to go by, although not much is said about it. If the ladies play softball, culottes are just not modest. If the church doesn’t want them wearing lose-fitting ball pants, let them join a Ping-Pong league or something.

I‘m not sure what “Ping-Pong” has to do with “loose-fitting ball pants” but I remind you of your words… “I personally like it…” It’s a personal preference. It shouldn’t be forced on anyone. If someone comes to that church and feels uncomfortable and leaves because they can’t dress like they are “supposed to” then the church is damaging the cause of Christ. If you feel that you are somehow better then someone else because of the way you dress then you are being legalistic and are no better than the Pharisees.

Can you show me in the Bible where it tells us that we are supposed to dress up to do to church?

Although you might not agree with everything I have said, I hope you will give it some consideration. Check out my website at: www.truthandscience.net. Take care my brother.

Consider it considered. I love the creation/evolution debate by the way. I’m a huge creationist, although I would imagine that we wouldn’t agree on everything, but that’s for a different day and time.

Hi Steve,

To keep what I originally wrote to you in context, I said the “truth” about Westcott and Hort and Bible versions, not anything else.

You talk about opinion and hearsay versus the “truth.” When it comes to Bible versions, Westcott and Hort, church history, etc., all you have to rely on is hearsay and opinion. You start out anti-fundamental Baptist, and anti-King James Version, so it is only natural that you will only believe information given on those two issues that go along with your pre-conceived mindset. It will not matter to you how credible your source of information is.

The Bible you prefer is the New Living Bible, correct? Did you know that is not a word for word translation? It is a thought for thought translation, or paraphrase of the Bible. It is a revision of Ken Taylor’s Living Bible. The translators did not attempt to translate the Greek or Hebrew words into English, they merely wrote down what they thought God meant by what He said. It is also a gender-neutral translation. Other changes were made to be politically correct. I can take a word in the King James Bible and look that very word of in the Greek or Hebrew to see which word it was translated from, and what the word means. That makes a great Bible study. It helps in getting the correct understanding of the passage. Does it bother you at all the many verses that are completely left out in your “Bible”?

Some of the people who worked on the translation of the New Living Bible were from man-made denominations that believe we can lose our salvation. Do you think that would have any affect on what they thought God meant by what He said?

There is no independent, fundamental, Baptist “denomination.” As you have admitted on your website, fundamental Baptists trace their fundamental beliefs back to the first century church. That would just make them mainstream and traditional Christians. All of the man-made churches that came into existence since then are denominations. You said the IFB is a powerful organization, there is no such organization.

You have made a distinction between having a discussion and my sharing my point of view. You still need to clarify exactly how we have a discussion without sharing our point of view.

You ask me to separate my opinion from the truth. You claim you saw little evidence of truth in what I wrote. If you are going to accuse me a lying , tell me what I lied about. We’ll discuss that.

You claim that you only state that IFB show signs of cultish practices. You state that “the IFB operates much like a cult.” You are careful to say that you can’t say that the IFB is a “cult, exactly, but it does have some cult characteristics which I will expose.” You state: “While on the surface the IFB seems to be a traditional organization, within the walls of the church there is false and extreme doctrine.”

I assume one of the things you consider false and extreme doctrine is tithing. Do you know how many of the man-made denominations also believe that tithing is scriptural? Most traditional Christian churches teach that. I understand why you don’t like it though.

One of the things I would suggest you do first is have someone proofread your website. There are typos all over the place. I just ignore them in your emails, because I know what you mean, but the website should be a little more professional. There is a lot of misinformation on your site, but I doubt you want to know the truth, proof of that would be whether or not you went to the website I suggested and read what they said about Westcott and Hort and the translation process. My guess would be no.

It is stated the King James Bible has had four “revisions,” which is not exactly true. In 1629 and 1638 they made corrections of earlier printing errors because of the type-setting process. These were actually two stages of the same process. In 1762 and 1769, in another two stage process, they did a standardization of the spelling. They did find some mistakes such as “And Parbar,” instead of “At Parbar. These corrections were made. But if someone told you Westcott and Hort had something to do with this process they clearly lied to you.
Arv

Before I had a chance to reply to that, along comes…

Hi Steve,

You said there is no such thing as “local church” in the Bible. “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth.” 1 Corinthians 1:2 “Unto the churches of Galatia.” Galatians 1:2 (These are churches that meet in a particular local area.) “To the saints which are at Ephesus,” “Unto the church of the Thessalonians,” etc. The church at Corinth might not do things exactly like the church at Ephesus, they didn’t have the same pastor. What exactly were you trying to prove by being against the term “local church”?

You said it is important to know that I do not know the majority of IFB pastors. I have spoken personally with hundreds of them (over 300 that I have been in their churches). I have probably had correspondence with hundreds more in the last 14 years. I have been on the websites of hundreds more and checked out their doctrinal positions. I think I have a pretty good idea of what is out there. I’ve met pastors like the ones you have mentioned, and from my personal experience I would say they are a real minority. Since you say you are only relying on your personal experience, which is limited, I would say that does not leave you as an expert in what is actually out there, although you seem to think so.

Arv

Hi Arv,

I’ll reply as I did before. See below.

Steve

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Arv Edgeworth wrote:

Hi Steve,

To keep what I originally wrote to you in context, I said the “truth” about Westcott and Hort and Bible versions, not anything else. You talk about opinion and hearsay versus the “truth.” When it comes to Bible versions, Westcott and Hort, church history, etc., all you have to rely on is hearsay and opinion. You start out anti-fundamental Baptist, and anti-King James Version, so it is only natural that you will only believe information given on those two issues that go along with your pre-conceived mindset. It will not matter to you how credible your source of information is.

If you wanted to share the “truth” only about Westcott and Hort and Bible versions, then why did you share so much other information with me? If you intended to share the truth about the KJV then why did you feel it necessary to try and school me on dress, music, etc. Why not just stick to the topic of the KJV?

So now I’m biased? More unfounded assumptions and accusations. Have you even read the site? I started out as you are, IFB to the core. During my research I found out that other information. That’s the opposite of biased and opposite of your accusation.

I could say the same about you. Your preconceived notions about me and your lengthy experience in the IFB could mean that you are biased. Why can you see that in me but not yourself?

The Bible you prefer is the New Living Bible, correct? Did you know that is not a word for word translation? It is a thought for thought translation, or paraphrase of the Bible. It is a revision of Ken Taylor’s Living Bible. The translators did not attempt to translate the Greek or Hebrew words into English, they merely wrote down what they thought God meant by what He said. It is also a gender-neutral translation. Other changes were made to be politically correct. I can take a word in the King James Bible and look that very word of in the Greek or Hebrew to see which word it was translated from, and what the word means. That makes a great Bible study. It helps in getting the correct understanding of the passage. Does it bother you at all the many verses that are completely left out in your “Bible”?

Where did you get this information? How do you know verses were left out? Yes, I’m aware of the differences in the New Living Translation. The translators still used the Hebrew and Greek text to convey their translation. I prefer a dynamic equivalence versus a formal equivalence translation since it’s easier to understand – thus the appeal of the NLT. Did you know that the KJV uses both styles of translation? It is impossible to have a 100% formal equivalence or word for word translation. This is addressed on the site. Please refer to the KJV Onlyism article on the site for more information.

I address the issue of versions “leaving out information” vs. the KJV adding information on my website. There are no verses left out. The KJV translators actually added verses not the reverse. Please refer to the website for more information on this. So no it doesn’t bother me that there are verses missing since that’s not true.

Can you tell me where [it says in the Bible that] it is a sin for the Bible to be gender-neutral or to be politically correct? How is that a bad thing? Did you know that the users of the Geneva Bible rejected the KJV when it first came out for the same reasons that you now reject our modern versions? Perhaps your resistance to the modern versions is more about your desire to follow tradition than getting at the truth.

Some of the people who worked on the translation of the New Living Bible were from man-made denominations that believe we can lose our salvation. Do you think that would have any affect on what they thought God meant by what He said?

More hearsay. Where did you get that information? What is your source?

There is no independent, fundamental, Baptist “denomination.” As you have admitted on your website, fundamental Baptists trace their fundamental beliefs back to the first century church. That would just make them mainstream and traditional Christians. All of the man-made churches that came into existence since then are denominations. You said the IFB is a powerful organization, there is no such organization.

This is a semantics game. It’s a denomination; there is no other word for it. It’s a group of churches that follow a similar set of distinctive. Organization, denomination, group… it’s a like minded web of churches.

You have made a distinction between having a discussion and my sharing my point of view. You still need to clarify exactly how we have a discussion without sharing our point of view.

I answered that question in my previous email. Did you even read it?

You ask me to separate my opinion from the truth. You claim you saw little evidence of truth in what I wrote. If you are going to accuse me a lying , tell me what I lied about. We’ll discuss that.

I wrote counter points to your arguments in my previous message. Did you even read it? Those are the areas that I feel you are sharing opinion rather than truth.

You claim that you only state that IFB show signs of cultish practices. You state that “the IFB operates much like a cult.” You are careful to say that you can’t say that the IFB is a “cult, exactly, but it does have some cult characteristics which I will expose.” You state: “While on the surface the IFB seems to be a traditional organization, within the walls of the church there is false and extreme doctrine.”

I assume one of the things you consider false and extreme doctrine is tithing. Do you know how many of the man-made denominations also believe that tithing is scriptural? Most traditional Christian churches teach that. I understand why you don’t like it though.

I talk very clearly on the site about why tithing is wrong and unbiblical.

One of the things I would suggest you do first is have someone proofread your website. There are typos all over the place. I just ignore them in your emails, because I know what you mean, but the website should be a little more professional. There is a lot of misinformation on your site, but I doubt you want to know the truth, proof of that would be whether or not you went to the website I suggested and read what they said about Westcott and Hort and the translation process. My guess would be no.

This is what’s called an ad hominem fallacy. My “typos” have nothing to do with the content. You have typos and grammatical errors too, who cares. I wasn’t aware that we were working on a formal publication.

How do you know I didn’t read the websites? More assumptions and accusations.

You doubt that I want to know the truth because you never asked me. I’m open to whatever truth you wish to share. I will remind you of the saying… People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. I feel that you care very little about me and are only interested in spreading the IFB dogma. Show me that you really care and I may be more open to hear what you have to say. So far I haven’t read anything from you that shows me you are interested in getting to the truth as much as you are in trying to educate or correct me.

It is stated the King James Bible has had four “revisions,” which is not exactly true. In 1629 and 1638 they made corrections of earlier printing errors because of the type-setting process.

These were actually two stages of the same process. In 1762 and 1769, in another two stage process, they did a standardization of the spelling. They did find some mistakes such as “And Parbar,” instead of “At Parbar. These corrections were made. But if someone told you Westcott and Hort had something to do with this process they clearly lied to you.

Hi Steve,

I would like to take a step back if we could. We haven’t gotten off to the best start. I will accept a lot of the responsibility for that. I apologize. I’m really sorry you had the experience you did in a Baptist church. I have been in my current church for about 29 years. I haven’t read hardly anything on your site that applies to my church or pastor. I was in a Baptist church for a couple years before that where some of it would apply. I have seen examples of just about everything you mention on your site in some form in Baptist churches. I have actually seen far worse in one church, maybe I’ll tell you about that one some time.

There are actually small movements within fundamental Baptists where some of this would be the norm in some form, although maybe not to the extent you experienced. I know you probably find this hard to believe but there are thousands of fundamental Baptist churches where most of your info wouldn’t apply. It isn’t being completely honest to include them in that. You may not be intending to but you are giving the idea on your website that the majority of fundamental Baptists are like this. They really aren’t. Steve, you admit having limited knowledge in this area, and are just going by your personal experiences, but you then state things that include thousands of good churches that you have absolutely no knowledge of at all. I understand your admitted anger because of what happened to you, but that doesn’t give you the right to try to muddy the good name of thousands of good churches in the process.

I agree with you speaking out about what happened to you. People need to be warned, and I appreciate the help you are trying to give others who have experienced some of the same things. Lumping all fundamental Baptists together and making them all guilty by association is not the way to go about it.

Are you aware of the Reformers Unanimous group? It is often referred to as R.U. It is an addiction ministry to reaches out to people of all kinds of addictions. We have had one in our church for over 5 years. It is spreading through independent, fundamental Baptist churches, and not just in this country. People of all kind of addictions are getting real victory in their battles. We have had such success in our area the County Sheriff, the jails, rescue missions and other groups are sending people to us. We have had over 75 people saved through our local chapter just this year. They are joining the church, becoming active in ministry, we just had to expand our auditorium to accommodate all the new people. We have a really caring group of Christians in our church that are really making a difference in our community. Too bad you couldn’t have gotten into a church like ours first. But maybe God had you in that church for a purpose. You can be a help to others that otherwise you might not know they exist. I’m just afraid you may be doing great harm to other good Baptist churches like ours out there that might be able to help people. There might be someone in our community that could benefit greatly by the love our pastor and our people have for people, but they might visit your website and shy away from the help that is there because we are fundamental Baptists. Satan is the enemy, not fundamental Baptists. There are some bad things happening in the name of Christ and of Baptists that are terribly wrong, make sure you are placing the blame where it belongs, or you could actually be fighting against the cause of Christ and causing great division in the church.

I have read all of the information on your website. I have also been on a few sites lately that agree with you on a few things. To give you a little more information about myself, right after I got saved I was in a church for 10 years that believe you can lose your salvation (not a Baptist church). The first church I was in after that (was a Baptist church) had a number of problems. After visiting a number of churches in our area and talking to about 12 different pastors I was beginning to wonder if there were any good churches out there. There wasn’t anything major like what you experienced, but one for example was a Baptist church that teaches you can lose your salvation, another was Calvinistic and taught man doesn’t really have a free will.

I mentioned that some of the translators of the NLT believe you can lose your salvation, some of them were Calvinistic also and believe man doesn’t have a free will. You believed this was hearsay and asked for my source, I actually did research on them from a pro-NLT website which gives their names and tell which college or group they are affiliated with. I know what many of those groups teach and believe.

The reason why I object to Baptists being called a denomination is because of their association with the beliefs and teachings of the first century Christian church. If the enemies of the early Christians had not started calling them “Baptists” because of their rejection of infant baptism, sprinkling, and insistence upon baptism for believers only, they would just be called Christians today. Methodists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Pentecostals etc. were started by some man or woman in the last 1700 years, and I tend to think of them in terms of a man-made denomination. I usually don’t think in terms of the Christian faith or Jewish faith as being a denomination. But you are right, it is just a matter of semantics, and it’s not that big a deal. I liked the information you have about who a true Baptist is.

The reason I questioned Westcott and Hort having anything to do with the King James Bible is because the last revision was before they were born. This is what you said: “The current KJV version (which is at least the 4th revision of the 1611 KJV) is based on the work that Westcott and Hort did” I guess you will have to explain what you mean by the 1769 revision of the King James Bible being based on the work that Westcott and Hort did. Westcott was born in 1825, Hort in 1828. How is that possible? You also stated: “In other words, Westcott and Hort is part of the heritage of the current version of the KJV that we have today.” How can two men born over 50 years after the last revision of the King James Bible be a part of it’s heritage, which would come before? You then state: “I don’t know how you still think that I’m telling you that Westcott and Hort participated in the current KJV translation unless you really aren’t reading what I write.” Again, how could it be based on their work and they be a part of its heritage if they came on the scene over 50 years after the last revision was made? I’m reading what you write, it just doesn’t make any sense. I’m trying to be kind here, not attacking. I’m not saying they participated in the translation process, you’re not really reading what I’m writing. How can a translation be based on a work that came over 100 years later (1881)?

I hope I didn’t sound too attacking, and I hope we can be friends and reach some common ground. Take care.

In His Service,
Arv

Hi Arv,

Apology accepted. Thanks for recognizing those things. I feel you are still making assumptions about me (I don’t recall admitting that “I have limited knowledge in this area”) but I guess this is a start. Hopefully as we continue our discussion you will come to a greater appreciation for my position and the reasons I have the website.

Ultimately, I consider myself as someone recovering from abuse in the church or more commonly known as a bad church experience (one that, for me, lasted almost 26 years in multiple churches). I’m sure you can imagine that after 26 years of abuse one would become somewhat mistrusting of anyone resembling/defending those who have been the abusers.

In reality, my site is more about spiritual abuse (abusive spiritual traditions, practices, teachings, beliefs, etc.) than the IFB. I write about the IFB simply because that’s where my experiences were. You can read more about spiritual abuse here http://www.baptistdeception.com/spiritual-abuse/
A few books on the topic include: The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen, Healing Spiritual Abuse by Ken Blue, Toxic Faith by Steve Arturbern, Chruches that Abuse by Ronald Enroth and Twisted Scriptures, by Mary Chrnalogar. You may also find interesting Messy Spirituality by Michael Yaconelli and Exegetical Fallacies by D.A Carson.

It’s amazing to me that you (and others who contact me with similar complaints) focus your attention on the abused rather than the abuser. It would be similar to a police officer getting angry at the rape victim for being mistrusting of guys rather than focusing his attention on the rapist. Had the churches I was in not abused then I wouldn’t have a felt need for this site.

You say I may be doing harm with my website, but I see it as the churches that are doing the harm. I’m just writing about it. What about the people who had given up all hope in church and Christianity until they found healing because of my site and/or the resources found within and came to Christ? Who are you to judge what God can and can’t use to bring people to Him? It’s this judgmental attitude that is so damaging to the church.

Someone once told me “don’t throw out the Baby with the bath water” regarding my reports of harm in the church. But I submit that there shouldn’t be “bath water” to throw out. The church should be a sanctuary (no pun intended) for the hurting, abused, tired, weak, and needy. Instead it has become a pious institution that promotes programs, self-righteousness, legalism and traditionalism above all else.

I’m glad you see that “people need to be warned”, and that you “appreciate the help [I am] trying to give others who have experienced some of the same things” because that’s what I want to accomplish. However, people accuse me all the time, as you have, of “lumping all fundamental Baptists together and making them all guilty by association”. Please keep in mind that I’m not the one associating one church with another. If a church doesn’t want the association of Independent, Fundamental, Baptist, Methodist or whatever, then they shouldn’t associate as such. The error in association is the church’s not mine. This isn’t blame shifting but simple common sense. If a church calls itself Independent Fundamental Baptist then it needs to be willing to accept the associations that go along with it – both good and bad. The same goes for other denominations.

Please keep in mind also that the site isn’t finished. It’s a work in progress. I intend to write much more about spiritual abuse in general, some of which may apply to your current church.

I’m not sure why you are sharing resources with me about addiction. I don’t have any addiction issues. Is the reformers group also about abuse issues?

I understand what you are saying about the translators of the NLT, but I still don’t understand why that’s a bad thing. To me it’s a good thing. To have such diversity and accountability so that no one doctrinal position, belief or understanding of scripture takes priority makes for a more thorough and reliable translation. I feel that you see the translators of the NLT as having malicious intent for injecting their beliefs into scripture (similar to what I was taught in my IFB experiences). To me that is an unfounded worry with no basis in reality. I see them as opening up a new world of understanding for those who have a hard time with Old English and Greek/Hebrew interpretation.

You told me that you can look up any word in the KJV in the Greek and Hebrew and understand what the translators were trying to communicate. But what about people without those resources and knowledge? I would think that it’s a good thing to have a version that is more readable and understandable so that the Gospel message can reach more people. Not everybody has a library of Biblical study material and even less have the basic understanding of how to use those resources anyway. This is so simple it’s frustrating. Why would anyone defend an archaic text that only a Pastor or Theologian can interpret? (That’s a rhetorical question by the way. Unfortunately, I know all too well why people defend the KJV).

Anyway, regarding the KJV, there are scholars who assert that the 1769 edition of the KJV wasn’t the last.

Steve

Hi Steve,

I don’t think we are making much progress, but I’ll address a few things anyway. I was really hoping you would take a step or two to reach some common ground, but I can see you won’t. You admitted limited knowledge in this area because you are basing it on the few churches you have been in, and the hearsay from other people claiming similar experiences. What are there about 25 million mainline Baptist churches, just in America? So let’s say you have personal information about 100 of them. Would you not agree that is somewhat limited? You state: “While I can’t say that every IFB church is run in a spiritually abusive manner since that would be an impossible claim to knowledge, I can easily infer, based on my experience with multiple IFB churches and based on others who I’ve talked to or shared their stories on this site, that most are.” If you claim that “most are” abusive you are making an impossible claim to knowledge. Exactly how can you easily infer that? Is that not being dishonest?

But I guess that would depend on what you call abuse. If you call using the King James Bible, or practicing tithing, or practicing biblical separation as being abusive, then most churches of any denomination could be considered abusive. Although most churches other than Baptist are getting away from the King James Bible (but not all) the majority of Christian churches in America still believe in tithing and biblical separation. Would you consider them abusive? Your own preferred Bible translation doesn’t back you up on the biblical separation issue. I’ll touch on that at the end.

You claim I am defending the abusers, that is not true. I clearly condemned those churches that practiced the things you mentioned, I am defending the churches that are not practicing forms of abuse that you claim still are, even though you have absolutely no personal knowledge of that. If I had the 2100 independent, fundamental Baptist churches on my mailing list all email you and let you know they are not practicing those things, it still wouldn’t matter to you, that is how deep your hatred goes for any fundamental Baptist church. It is the IFB you are angry at, not the abuses themselves. The fact it happened in the IFB is enough justification for you to take out your anger on all the other ones for allowing this to happen. Faulty logic, but understandable.

This next statement is real funny: “In reality, my site is more about spiritual abuse (abusive spiritual traditions, practices, teachings, beliefs, etc.) than the IFB.” Your hatred for the IFB comes through loud and clear. The part about abusive spiritual teachings and beliefs is really, really, funny. What is that exactly, anything that cramps your desired lifestyle?

I warn you about the harm you may cause to good churches that are not practicing spiritual abuse, although you slanderously claim they are, and you accuse me of being judgmental. Your whole site is judgmental. The sad thing is you are judging churches as being guilty of abuse just because of the name on their sign out front of their building. Is your hatred for Baptists so deep that it doesn’t concern you at all about the good churches you may hurt in the process?

What you said about associations is really funny. If all the good churches don’t like my accusing generalizations about Baptists they should change their name. If I knew someone named Tim that was a child abuser, then heard of several more child abusers named Tim, and I created a website stating that most people named Tim are child abusers, and people started telling me they know a lot of people named Tim who are not child abusers. So my response should be: If the majority of good Tim’s don’t like it, let them change their name? You actually think that makes sense? Would that let me off the hook for making the wrong statement to begin with? Of course not. I doubt if the degree of anger and hatred you have will ever allow you to do what’s right in that area.

Crime shows about serial killers come to mind. Because of some kind of abuse in their childhood, the killer takes out his revenge on not only the guilty parties involved, but a lot of innocent people who are guilty by association. Somehow they also manage to pick up a fan-club along the way. I’ve see you’ve done that also.

On your site you state: “It is not the intention of this site to hurt or defame anyone. I will do my best to not single out a particular church. It is the sole intention of this site to bring into the light the hurtful and dangerous practices of the IFB.” Let’s think about that. It wasn’t the majority of IFB churches that did this to you. Instead of singling out a few, that actually did the abuse, let’s condemn all the innocent ones too. You are accusing the “IFB” of hurtful and dangerous practices as a group, for which you have no knowledge of. I have informed you that it is not true of our church, and hundreds of other “IFB” churches that I know about personally, but that does not matter to you. You are determined to take out your anger on all “IFB” churches, whether they are guilty or not. I know, “If they don’t like it, change their name.” If all the good “IFB” churches changed their name, then that would make your statement true, wouldn’t it? However, since that isn’t going to happen, it makes your all-inclusive statements false. Don’t try to give me the garbage that you are interested in truth, that is a lie. You are interested in revenge, pure and simple, and any innocent parties that get hurt in the process, so what. Is this your idea of your own healing process? Well, I guess it works for serial killers. Makes them feel better anyway.

You stated: “This is so simple it’s frustrating. Why would anyone defend an archaic text that only a Pastor or Theologian can interpret? (That’s a rhetorical question by the way. Unfortunately, I know all to well why people defend the KJV).” I know all too well why people like yourself attack it also, and it has nothing to do with not being able to understand it. If I told you, you wouldn’t believe me and just become more defensive. Our Sunday School kids about third-grade level understand it by the way. Jr. High level at least and above I guess on the national averages.

I want to leave you with some verses from the NLT about biblical separation. I would like you to explain to me in your own words why these are not referring to biblical separation.

James 1:27
“Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.”

Romans 12:1-2
1 “And so, dear brothers and sisters, I plead with you to give your bodies to God because of all he has done for you. Let them be a living and holy sacrifice—the kind he will find acceptable. This is truly the way to worship him. 2 Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect.”
How do we keep our bodies holy, not copying the behavior of the world, and learn what is good and pleasing to God?

Romans 13:13-14
13 “Because we belong to the day, we must live decent lives for all to see. Don’t participate in the darkness of wild parties and drunkenness, or in sexual promiscuity and immoral living, or in quarreling and jealousy.
14 Instead, clothe yourself with the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ. And don’t let yourself think about ways to indulge your evil desires.”

1 Corinthians 5:11-13
11 “I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don’t even eat with such people.
12 It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning.
13 God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you.”
What exactly about “not associate with, don’t eat with, remove from among you” do you not understand in the NLT?

1 Corinthians 6:9-12
9 “Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 11 Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
12 You say, “I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is good for you. And even though “I am allowed to do anything,” I must not become a slave to anything.”
On not becoming a slave to anything, could that be interpreted as anything that we could become addicted to?

1 Peter 1:14-16
14 “So you must live as God’s obedient children. Don’t slip back into your old ways of living to satisfy your own desires. You didn’t know any better then. 15 But now you must be holy in everything you do, just as God who chose you is holy. 16 For the Scriptures say, “You must be holy because I am holy.”
“I’m going to drink, smoke, dance, gamble and party so that I can be holy in everything I do.” Right. What was that about not slipping back into our old ways to satisfy our own desires? I wonder what that is talking about?

Galatians 5:19-21
19 “When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, 21 envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God.”
So if you are going to do any of those things, make sure it is always in moderation.

Romans 14, 21
14 “So let’s stop condemning each other. Decide instead to live in such a way that you will not cause another believer to stumble and fall.
It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another believer to stumble.”
You mean I should be concerned about what others might think about the things I allow in my life, and how it might affect them? How legalistic.

1 Corinthians 10:23-24, 31
23 “You say, “I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is good for you. You say, “I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is beneficial. 24 Don’t be concerned for your own good but for the good of others.
31 So whether you eat or drink, or whatsoever you do, do it all for the glory of God.”
When you allow questionable things into your lifestyle, make sure you do it in a way that will bring glory to God. I can’t help you there. I’m not sure how you can do that either.

1 Peter 4:3-5
3 “You have had enough in the past of the evil things that godless people enjoy—their immorality and lust, their feasting and drunkenness and wild parties, and their terrible worship of idols.
4 Of course, your former friends are surprised when you no longer plunge into the flood of wild and destructive things they do. So they slander you. 5 But remember that they will have to face God, who will judge everyone, both the living and the dead.”
Oh wait. You do plunge into the wild and destructive things they do. Well, let the party begin.

The NLT has a lot to say about separation doesn’t it? I just gave you a few. Just reading those verses probably made you feel like were back in a Baptist church didn’t it? Well I can see you will have to find a different Bible version that maybe waters it down a little more. I’ll let you know if I hear about one.

Steve, you are an angry hate-filled person that is so bent on taking out his revenge you have no concern over who gets hurt in the process. You can use all the double-talk you want about helping people get healing, that isn’t what this is about. If this was about abuse, you would focus on the abuse, because it happens in many denominations, but it isn’t about the abuse, it is about something that only exists in your imagination. The majority of IFB churches are not guilty of abuse. But what you call abuse and what actually is, are two different things anyway. You should change the name of your website to SteveDeception.com.

What if tithing was an Old Testament practice? Tithing was actually started 400 years before the law was given, it was just regulated under the law. The Ten Commandments are part of the law. Which one of these is it okay to break? What if the New Testament churches had no direct scriptural teaching in the New Testament about financing God’s work? Should they consider principles in the Old Testament as a guideline? Since ten per cent was given 400 years before the law was given as an example of giving, should that be given consideration? You do know that the word tithe means ten per cent right? A lot of things that have become a standard way of doing things in modern day churches have no clear teaching in the Bible. They didn’t have a whole Bible to carry to church with them then, should we get rid of them? At the start they just met in homes or the local Jewish synagogue. Just because we have a group of 600 Christians in our area is no reason to build a larger building, right?

If you ever do visit a Reformers Unanimous meeting, I hope you don’t stand up and say: “I’m glad the grace of God allows me to drink, smoke, and gamble.” The people who’s lives and families have been destroyed by these might not appreciate it. The grace of God isn’t a license to sin or live any way you want to. A Christian’s life he lives out in front of people is supposed to show what the grace of God can do in a life to change it.

I could quote to you from many, many Bible scholars teaching that 1 John chapter one is talking about Christians, not lost people, and why, but I know you would reject it anyway, and I don’t want to confuse you with facts. Ignorance just shows a lack of knowledge, someone might be able to fix that. Willing ignorance shows lack of character, you usually can’t help that person much, nor are you supposed to spend much time trying. I’ve tried to help you Steve, but I doubt if God is going to get much of a chance to help you either. I doubt you will ever admit you are wrong in any of these areas, so I will not try to help. Good-bye Steve.

In His Service,
Arv Edgeworth

Hi Arv,

Bummer. I thought we’d just begun to make progress. You will have to define more clearly, then, what you mean by “common ground”. Finding Common ground typically comes over time. It’s not instantaneous. If by “common ground” you mean my agreeing with you then why don’t we start with what we do agree on? I recall a few things on a previous email that I agreed with you on. Can’t we build “common ground” from there?

Aren’t you assuming that I have knowledge in this area from ONLY personal experience? I never said that experience is my ONLY source of knowledge about this topic. That is yet another assumption you have made about me. I’ve studied this thoroughly and I have a cohort of colleagues who have studied this as well. I have thousands of people share similar experiences from all over the world. Each of my colleagues have thousands of people share similar experiences. I’m not pulling this out of thin air or making it up.

I can infer that “most” churches are abusive because of the definition of spiritual abuse, not because of my experiences. No, that’s not being dishonest. It’s sharing information and allowing the reader to determine for him/herself what applies to his/her unique situation. I talk about this very clearly on the site and I also share what typically constitutes abuse.

I never said you were defending the abusers. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

I don’t have hatred for the IFB. I have hatred for spiritual abuse. You speak of my faulty logic yet you continue to use ad hominem fallacies to argue your point.

All churches are spiritually abusive in one way or another. It’s unavoidable. My focus is on exposing it and helping people avoid it.

Your comparison of denominations to a single person named Tim doesn’t fit. You are comparing an organization with an individual. It’s not a fair or logical comparison. I bet this is why you don’t like the term denomination being applied to your church because if you deny that Baptist is a denomination then you can more easily hand wave the abuse done in the name of the IFB. How convenient.

Again, I ask you what your purpose is in sharing Reformers Unanimous with me? Why do you assume that I drink, smoke and gamble (which I don’t)? Why do you automatically assume that I have an addiction of some kind?

What do you mean by “biblical separation” and how did that come about in the discussion? I thought you were going to share truth about the KJV? Can you please pick a topic and stick with it? I’m having a difficult time following your jumping around.

You will need to answer some of my questions before I answer any more of yours. I would suggest that you calm down before you write again. You’re a pot calling the kettle black when you speak of my anger.

Also, let this serve as your last warning. If you continue to accuse and attack me you will be cut off. I’ll not tolerate your unfounded assumptions about me, your calling me a liar, your judgments about me, your bullying, your attack of my intelligence, your perpetuating the spiritual abuse anymore. You don’t know me or my lifestyle and you don’t seem interested in getting to know me. You only seem interested in cramming your closed minded beliefs down my throat. One more comment that’s derogatory about me and we’re done. So if you want to continue I suggest you find a different way to get your point across.

Steve

Hi Steve,

This is a pretty long one. I’m sorry if it seems like I’m jumping around a bit. You have mentioned the information on your site, so I have read every article, so I’m thinking back to your overall site information, not just the King James Bible issue. What we have been discussing has really been more about fundamental Baptists in general, not just this one issue. On your site you do state that much of what I will read there is based directly on your personal experience. I think you are too limited in that to make the generalizations that you do. I can see though if your personal experience has been in a certain type of churches, that maybe all were in a certain type of fundamental Baptist church, how that would affect your view of fundamental Baptists in general. You have knowledge of thousands of Baptist churches through your contacts, as do I. My experiences seem to have been quite different from yours. I have been a member of two different fundamental Baptist churches, exactly how many fundamental Baptist churches have you attended for any length of time? I only ask that so I can understand your experience better, not because I think my experience is greater.

I want you to try to see something from my vantage point. I agree with you completely about some types of abuse that goes on in the name of Christianity (not just the “IFB”), but I disagree that some of the things you list as spiritual abuse actually are, although I think I understand why you consider it to be. But when you attack the “IFB,” you are attacking me also. I have been a fundamental Baptist for about 31 years. To me that is a personal attack. When you indicate “most” fundamental Baptists are guilty of spiritual abuse, I do take that as derogatory statements about myself, my family, and my pastor and church family. Your only response to your all-inclusive statements are, that if I don’t like it I can change my name. I consider Baptist tradition similarly to being an American. I am proud to be both, despite our imperfections. You claim you are not out to hurt or harm anyone. You justify that by your not naming any particular church. When you make derogatory statements about “most” fundamental Baptists, these churches are made up of individuals. They don’t exist as an organization without any faces. These are personal attacks against people, most of whom you don’t even know.

I’ll try not to be attacking you personally, but I do believe you have a lot of misinformation on your site, and I think you are making statements that are untrue, but I know you are probably not intentionally lying about it, and you actually do believe you are being truthful. You condemn fundamental Baptist churches for being against drinking, smoking and gambling, and say on your site that these are: “incredibly unbiblical, but also very dangerous and damaging to the name of Christianity,” but then say you don’t do any of these things either? So you actually do practice separation? I know you included a lot of other stuff too. You accuse fundamental Baptists of pulling scripture out of context to support biblical separation, but that is what the scriptures clearly teach, and it is also practiced and taught by just about every mainline denomination. Should you single out fundamental Baptists when it is a common Christian practice and teaching? You give the Bible quotes, claim they are taken out of context, but offer no proof that they are, or explain what they really mean. Those verses say basically the same thing in your own NLT.

On your site in relation to biblical separation you say that the fundamental Baptists make the claim that they are the only ones who truly believe the Bible. All others (other churches/denominations/fellowships) are misinterpreting the Bible and spreading false doctrine. Most other denominations teach and practice the same thing about biblical separation. If an individual Christian doesn’t believe in practicing biblical separation, I think they are being dishonest, at least with themselves, about what the scriptures actually teach in that regard.

On your site you state that the “IFB” claim that if you don’t go to a Fundamental Baptist Church you are believing a different message. Could you be a little more specific? We know that Methodists, Church of God, Assembly of God, etc teach that Christians can lose their salvation, I know you don’t believe that. Many Arminian churches have taught an experience where you no longer have a sin nature. I doubt if you believe that either. You mentioned you didn’t believe in the faith healing teachings of the Pentecostals, and I doubt that you practice speaking in tongues either. The Presbyterians and some Bible churches teach Calvinism, that God just chooses who will go to heaven, and who will go to hell, without regard to man having a free will and the ability to make choices. I doubt you believe that either. Seventh-Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. basically teach a works salvation and don’t believe in the new birth such as you and I have experienced. Would it be an accurate statement to say that other churches believe a different message, or did you have something different in mind?

You stated you never experienced the grace of God because the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination doesn’t teach the true Grace of God. Could you explain to me what you believe the true Grace of God is that is taught in scripture? I think I have a pretty good idea about what the Bible teaches about grace, but help me out here.

You stated that the “IFB” misinterprets Romans 6:1 and takes it out of context. I have read the end of chapter 5 in the NLT and all of chapter 6. I wanted to make sure it doesn’t teach something different about grace than the King James Bible does, but it doesn’t. So please explain to me what you think the correct interpretation of Romans 6:1 is. Thanks.

You said: “I can infer that ‘most’ churches are abusive because of the definition of spiritual abuse, not because of my experiences.” If you are including biblical separation as a form of spiritual abuse, I guess you will have to include your NLT version of the scriptures, because it teaches the same biblical separation that the majority of Christian churches teach on the same subject. I noticed you didn’t respond to respond to the verses I gave you from the NLT about separation,

You just stated: ” I never said you were defending the abusers. Please stop putting words in my mouth.” Let’s see, your exact words were: “I’m sure you can imagine that after 26 years of abuse one would become somewhat mistrusting of anyone resembling/defending those who have been the abusers.” It sure appears that “defending those who have been the abusers” was a part of the sentence. Sorry if I got the wrong message from that.

On your site you state: “The leaders of the Independent Fundamental Baptist denomination got their teachings from other IFB organizations who have gotten their teachings from other IFB organizations and so on. The teachings and traditions have been taught and passed down for so long that they are considered equal with the Word of God and are no longer questioned.” I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it appears you are stating that the teachings of the independent fundamental Baptists are not based on what the Word of God says, but have just been handed down. A lot of Roman Catholic teachings are just based on traditions, but I try to base all of my beliefs on the Word of God. It appears you are saying I don’t, since I am a fundamental Baptist. It appears you are claiming that the majority of teaching of fundamental Baptists are just handed down and not based on scripture. You are including me in that, and I consider it a personal attack.

Now you make this statement: “All churches are spiritually abusive in one way or another. It’s unavoidable.” Would you like to explain that statement? Have you told the pastor at your current church that they are guilty of spiritual abuse? Tell me about the ways your current church is spiritually abusive.

I am an individual, I am a fundamental Baptist, so I am guilty by association. Your solution is to change my name. How exactly is that different that a man named Tim being guilty by association? We are both individuals who are considered guilty because of what we call ourselves. I think the comparison is pretty clear.

By the way, so as not to put words in your mouth, you just stated: “I don’t have hatred for the IFB. I have hatred for spiritual abuse. On your site you state: “I guess it’s no wonder why I’ve been so angry after my abusive experience with the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination.” Most of your focus is aimed at the “IFB.”

There are some doctrinal teachings that are not abusive in and of themselves. If taken to extremes, almost any Bible teaching can be, if applied in an extreme way. Something for you to consider. Is it possible that because you have had a number of doctrinal teachings applied to you in an extreme way, that you now reject the Bible teaching itself, and consider it abusive, when it might not be if applied in a reasonable way?

Let me address a few commonalities you give for fundamental Baptist churches. I don’t believe biblical separation is unscriptural, nor just exclusively fundamental Baptist, there are other groups that take a more extreme position on this than Baptists. I don’t think we should be quick to condemn them because they have different convictions than our own in certain areas. Legalism can be abusive, but so can liberty, if we condemn those whose convictions are different than our own.

The church is commanded to earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints. That includes more than salvation and evangelism. The fact that you mention tithing as one of your biggest complaints, along with separation, baptism, music standards, dress standards, strict child discipline, church membership, etc. leads me to believe they didn’t just focus on salvation and evangelism almost to the exclusion of all else. I think you have disproved one of your own points.

Our church doesn’t try to hide emotion. If a song is sung from the heart once in a great while a person will have trouble singing because they are touched by the message. It is not unusual for us to clap after a song or musical
number. We also applaud missionaries and special speakers.

Do you believe that membership in a local church is not practiced by almost every denomination? If it is, that wouldn’t be a commonality just with Baptist churches. You seem to be indicating these are common with fundamental Baptists but not with other denominations. I don’t believe that is the case with most of these. How can a local church discipline a member out of the local church, if they are not already a part of that local church?

Question: Are new believers instructed to get baptized by immersion right away after salvation in the Bible? The Greek word for baptism does mean total immersion also. No other form was called baptism until several hundred years after Christ.

Music. IFB churches all have different standards concerning their music. I have been in worship services in over 300 different IFB churches. I have observed everything from traditional to Christian Rock. Many have more than one service on Sunday morning. In the contemporary service just about anything goes sometimes. Steel guitars, drums, ladies with tambourines, whole orchestra, etc. We prefer more traditional, but throw in a few choruses from the overhead projector. That is what most of our people like. I don’t think you have any authority to decide for us what we should or shouldn’t allow in our services. To say this as kindly as I can, that really isn’t any of your business.

Steve, you have this idea that all IFB churches do things just this certain way. That is absolutely not true. Part of the autonomy of the local Baptist church is that each individual church governs themselves in these areas. That is part of what makes Baptists who they are. Here is a link if you want to add this into the equation of who fundamental Baptists are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_Distinctives. I have collected over 150 science books by the way. I love science. Real science that is, and not what is often passed off as science today. I believe that the majority of scientists and science teachers today cannot recognize where real science ends, and their philosophical worldview begins. That has been a great hindrance to real science. If you want to read a great book on the subject, check out “The Limitations of Scientific Truth” by Nigel Brush. He has a Ph.D. from UCLA and is an assistant professor of geology at Ashland University in Ohio. As a scientist he has conducted archaeological, geological, and environmental fieldwork in England, Canada, New York, Ohio, and California. This is an excellent book and I think you would really enjoy it.

I think you are a bit confused by the difference between fellowship with God, and our relationship with God. They are two different things. Sin has no affect on my relationship with God (I am His child), it does affect my fellowship with God.

First you state: “Just because a Believer has a chronic sin or is living a sinful lifestyle doesn’t mean that God has turned His back on him/her. He will Continue to pursue that person until that person either returns to a relationship with Him or dies.” But in the next sentence you say: “Our relationship with God is not dependent on our behavior.”

On the one hand you talk about a person living a sinful lifestyle either “returns to a relationship with Him or dies.” If he must return to a relationship with Him, that would indicate that they are not “in a relationship with Him.” You can’t return to a relationship if you are still in a relationship. You indicate a person living a sinful lifestyle are out of a relationship with God, but then state our relationship is not dependent upon our behavior. It can’t be both. Then you state it is: “freeing to know that my fellowship with God is not dependent on my behavior.”

You are using fellowship and relationship interchangeably, and they are two different things. My relationship cannot be affected by sin. That is where grace comes in. I will be His child no matter what. That is my relationship. My fellowship is dependent upon my behavior. Interpreted properly, that is what 1 John chapter one is referring to. If I am living in a sinful lifestyle it hurts my fellowship with God. If I walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another. Cleansing in this chapter is like having a clean slate with nothing to break our fellowship. One sin doesn’t break fellowship, living in a sinful lifestyle does. The whole chapter is speaking to Christians. John uses the term “we,” believers, throughout the passage. The first three verses lets you know who the “we” is. Our “joy” is connected to our fellowship.

I didn’t mention Reformers Unanimous because I thought you had an addiction. You indicated that the IFB churches were so focused on salvation, etc. and were not as concerned about meeting the needs of hurting people. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but I don’t remember the exact statement. It is interesting though that the things people often want the freedom to do, are things that enslave them and take away their freedom. I’m not as concerned about things I might not be able to do, as I am about the victory Christ has given me from things that Satan will try to use to destroy my life. He has set me free. Praise His name. I hope I wasn’t too accusing or derogatory. Take care.

In His Service,
Arv Edgeworth

Hi Arv,

I’m so glad you wrote back. I was hoping we could continue. I think things would go more smoothly if we could focus on one topic at a time. I’ll try to follow your email as best as I can. See replies below in red.

Steve

Hi Steve,

This is a pretty long one. I’m sorry if it seems like I’m jumping around a bit. You have mentioned the information on your site, so I have read every article, so I’m thinking back to your overall site information, not just the King James Bible issue. What we have been discussing has really been more about fundamental Baptists in general, not just this one issue. On your site you do state that much of what I will read there is based directly on your personal experience. I think you are too limited in that to make the generalizations that you do. I can see though if your personal experience has been in a certain type of churches, that maybe all were in a certain type of fundamental Baptist church, how that would affect your view of fundamental Baptists in general. You have knowledge of thousands of Baptist churches through your contacts, as do I. My experiences seem to have been quite different from yours. I have been a member of two different fundamental Baptist churches, exactly how many fundamental Baptist churches have you attended for any length of time? I only ask that so I can understand your experience better, not because I think my experience is greater.

I want you to try to see something from my vantage point. I agree with you completely about some types of abuse that goes on in the name of Christianity (not just the “IFB”), but I disagree that some of the things you list as spiritual abuse actually are, although I think I understand why you consider it to be. But when you attack the “IFB,” you are attacking me also. I have been a fundamental Baptist for about 31 years. To me that is a personal attack. When you indicate “most” fundamental Baptists are guilty of spiritual abuse, I do take that as derogatory statements about myself, my family, and my pastor and church family. Your only response to your all-inclusive statements are, that if I don’t like it I can change my name. I consider Baptist tradition similarly to being an American. I am proud to be both, despite our imperfections. You claim you are not out to hurt or harm anyone. You justify that by your not naming any particular church. When you make derogatory statements about “most” fundamental Baptists, these churches are made up of individuals. They don’t exist as an organization without any faces. These are personal attacks against people, most of whom you don’t even know.

We are supposed to follow Christ and His Word not the traditions of men. See Colossians 2.

No, a personal attack would be naming a person and attacking them. I’m writing about the IFB not a particular person. You are taking it personally, but I don’t know how to stop that. That’s your issue not mine.

I’ll try not to be attacking you personally, but I do believe you have a lot of misinformation on your site, and I think you are making statements that are untrue, but I know you are probably not intentionally lying about it, and you actually do believe you are being truthful. You condemn fundamental Baptist churches for being against drinking, smoking and gambling, and say on your site that these are: “incredibly unbiblical, but also very dangerous and damaging to the name of Christianity,” but then say you don’t do any of these things either? So you actually do practice separation? I know you included a lot of other stuff too. You accuse fundamental Baptists of pulling scripture out of context to support biblical separation, but that is what the scriptures clearly teach, and it is also practiced and taught by just about every mainline denomination. Should you single out fundamental Baptists when it is a common Christian practice and teaching? You give the Bible quotes, claim they are taken out of context, but offer no proof that they are, or explain what they really mean. Those verses say basically the same thing in your own NLT.

Again, I’m not against biblical separation. I never said I was. I’m simply against the way the IFB teaches separation and how they have turned it into a doctrine that communicates it as a graceless legalistic righteousness.

I don’t drink, smoke, gamble, etc. simply because I don’t want to. The difference is that people with a legalistic righteousness mindset don’t smoke, drink, gamble, etc. because they feel it makes them more favorable with God – as if they are trying earning God’s grace and love by not doing those particular behaviors (that’s the way it was taught to me in my IFB churches). This is legalistic righteousness and it’s the very thing that Jesus warned the Pharisees about.

I feel bad that you spent so much time and effort looking up verses about separation and sharing them. I wish I could have explained further before you spent all that time – if only you would have asked rather than assumed.

I find it interesting that not a single verse you shared, though, mentions one word about drinking (drunkenness is vastly different from drinking), smoking or gambling. How did you come to the conclusion that those particular behaviors are wrong? What’s so special about those behaviors that make them stand out? Why point to them?

On your site in relation to biblical separation you say that the fundamental Baptists make the claim that they are the only ones who truly believe the Bible. All others (other churches/denominations/fellowships) are misinterpreting the Bible and spreading false doctrine. Most other denominations teach and practice the same thing about biblical separation. If an individual Christian doesn’t believe in practicing biblical separation, I think they are being dishonest, at least with themselves, about what the scriptures actually teach in that regard.

On your site you state that the “IFB” claim that if you don’t go to a Fundamental Baptist Church you are believing a different message. Could you be a little more specific? We know that Methodists, Church of God, Assembly of God, etc teach that Christians can lose their salvation, I know you don’t believe that. Many Arminian churches have taught an experience where you no longer have a sin nature. I doubt if you believe that either. You mentioned you didn’t believe in the faith healing teachings of the Pentecostals, and I doubt that you practice speaking in tongues either. The Presbyterians and some Bible churches teach Calvinism, that God just chooses who will go to heaven, and who will go to hell, without regard to man having a free will and the ability to make choices. I doubt you believe that either. Seventh-Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. basically teach a works salvation and don’t believe in the new birth such as you and I have experienced. Would it be an accurate statement to say that other churches believe a different message, or did you have something different in mind?

Re-read the beginning of that paragraph. I’m talking about the IFB’s claim to be the only “Bible Believing” Christians. My pastor and parents and teachers would frequently remind us that it’s important to go to a “bible believing church” and that meant an IFB church. All other denominations/churches didn’t really believe or teach the Bible for many reasons but mostly because 1. they didn’t use the KJV and 2. they weren’t teaching the fundamentals of the faith (according to them). It was as if the IFB has the only source of truth. This is not scriptural and it is nothing short of manipulation. It’s a lie.

I guess the word “message” isn’t very clear. I can see how that would be confusing. I’m not sure what a better word would be though, “set of beliefs” or “gospel message” perhaps.

You stated you never experienced the grace of God because the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination doesn’t teach the true Grace of God. Could you explain to me what you believe the true Grace of God is that is taught in scripture? I think I have a pretty good idea about what the Bible teaches about grace, but help me out here.

I think I already gave you my view on grace in a previous message. I’ll have to look for it.

You stated that the “IFB” misinterprets Romans 6:1 and takes it out of context. I have read the end of chapter 5 in the NLT and all of chapter 6. I wanted to make sure it doesn’t teach something different about grace than the King James Bible does, but it doesn’t. So please explain to me what you think the correct interpretation of Romans 6:1 is. Thanks.

The IFB teaches that Romans 6 justifies a legalistic or works based righteousness. The IFB teaches that a person has to earn God’s grace through performance based behaviors and standards of living. They confuse grace with sanctification.

Grace is not earned it’s given. Romans 6 is talking about abusing God’s gift of grace by taking advantage of it (sinning knowing that His grace will cover the sin or force Him to forgive). It has nothing to do with working to earn favor with God. We don’t have to do anything to earn God’s grace. God’s grace is a gift that is given. Again, I’ve already written this to you in a previous message.

You said: “I can infer that ‘most’ churches are abusive because of the definition of spiritual abuse, not because of my experiences.” If you are including biblical separation as a form of spiritual abuse, I guess you will have to include your NLT version of the scriptures, because it teaches the same biblical separation that the majority of Christian churches teach on the same subject. I noticed you didn’t respond to respond to the verses I gave you from the NLT about separation,

See my comments on separation above.

You just stated: ” I never said you were defending the abusers. Please stop putting words in my mouth.” Let’s see, your exact words were: “I’m sure you can imagine that after 26 years of abuse one would become somewhat mistrusting of anyone resembling/defending those who have been the abusers.” It sure appears that “defending those who have been the abusers” was a part of the sentence. Sorry if I got the wrong message from that.

On your site you state: “The leaders of the Independent Fundamental Baptist denomination got their teachings from other IFB organizations who have gotten their teachings from other IFB organizations and so on. The teachings and traditions have been taught and passed down for so long that they are considered equal with the Word of God and are no longer questioned.” I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it appears you are stating that the teachings of the independent fundamental Baptists are not based on what the Word of God says, but have just been handed down. A lot of Roman Catholic teachings are just based on traditions, but I try to base all of my beliefs on the Word of God. It appears you are saying I don’t, since I am a fundamental Baptist. It appears you are claiming that the majority of teaching of fundamental Baptists are just handed down and not based on scripture. You are including me in that, and I consider it a personal attack.

Again, I’m sorry you take those things personally, but I don’t know what to do about that.

Now you make this statement: “All churches are spiritually abusive in one way or another. It’s unavoidable.” Would you like to explain that statement? Have you told the pastor at your current church that they are guilty of spiritual abuse? Tell me about the ways your current church is spiritually abusive.

Because of our fallen nature, abuse happens in every church. A church and the people in charge of running it would have to be perfect in order for a church to not be abusive at least some of the time.

I don’t go to church currently. I believe church the way we do it in today’s society isn’t biblical. The simple fact that churches teach that people need to go to church is abusive in my opinion since it isn’t scriptural.

Many churches make people feel guilty for not attending – or at least not attending on a regular basis. This is manipulation and abusive.

I am an individual, I am a fundamental Baptist, so I am guilty by association. Your solution is to change my name. How exactly is that different that a man named Tim being guilty by association? We are both individuals who are considered guilty because of what we call ourselves. I think the comparison is pretty clear.

Your comparison is illogical. Look up the logical fallacy called Faulty Comparison. It just doesn’t work.

This is a two way street. There are really two ways to look at this. A person who is an Independent Fundamental Baptist calls himself/herself such because they WANT to associate with a certain set of beliefs and values. You are associating with the IFB because that’s what you WANT to be – and for all reasons you have. This is YOUR association not mine. I didn’t choose that association for you. The same is true for a particular church. If a particular church or congregation call themselves Independent Fundamental Baptist then they are associating with all that represents an Independent Fundamental Baptist church. That’s their association not mine. By contrast, a person named Tim doesn’t have much of a choice over what his name is. If, however, there was a Tim who was unassociated with the rape, but then decided that since he has the name Tim he will rape as well, then that would be his association not the victims.

I suppose that if we stretched this a little bit we could find the comparison that a person who was raped by a man named Tim would have PTSD regarding the name Tim or an aversion to men named Tim since it would bring back memories of the trauma. In this scenario all Tim’s would be guilty by association, but it wouldn’t be Tim’s fault. This would be the victim’s association not Tim’s. So I guess according to this scenario I am doing the association, but this isn’t the way I communicate it on the site and again, this is a two way street. It works both ways.

This get’s confusing I know, but you have to remember that I didn’t know you from Adam when I wrote those things on the site. I didn’t have you personally in mind when writing those things. I didn’t choose that you would associate with the IFB – that was your choice of association not mine.

By the way, so as not to put words in your mouth, you just stated: “I don’t have hatred for the IFB. I have hatred for spiritual abuse. On your site you state: “I guess it’s no wonder why I’ve been so angry after my abusive experience with the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination.” Most of your focus is aimed at the “IFB.”

Anger and hatred aren’t necessarily synonymous. One can be angry at something/someone but not hate it/them. I guess you could say I hate spiritual abuse and I’m angry at the IFB for perpetuating it.

There are some doctrinal teachings that are not abusive in and of themselves. If taken to extremes, almost any Bible teaching can be, if applied in an extreme way. Something for you to consider. Is it possible that because you have had a number of doctrinal teachings applied to you in an extreme way, that you now reject the Bible teaching itself, and consider it abusive, when it might not be if applied in a reasonable way?

I guess that’s possible simply because that would be a natural consequence of abuse and because I’m not omniscient. I’ve made extra effort to be careful not to reject a biblical teaching just because it was taught to me in an extreme way so it may be possible, but not probable.

There are some teachings that I don’t reject.

Let me address a few commonalities you give for fundamental Baptist churches. I don’t believe biblical separation is unscriptural, nor just exclusively fundamental Baptist, there are other groups that take a more extreme position on this than Baptists. I don’t think we should be quick to condemn them because they have different convictions than our own in certain areas. Legalism can be abusive, but so can liberty, if we condemn those whose convictions are different than our own.

The church is commanded to earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints. That includes more than salvation and evangelism. The fact that you mention tithing as one of your biggest complaints, along with separation, baptism, music standards, dress standards, strict child discipline, church membership, etc. leads me to believe they didn’t just focus on salvation and evangelism almost to the exclusion of all else. I think you have disproved one of your own points.

Our church doesn’t try to hide emotion. If a song is sung from the heart once in a great while a person will have trouble singing because they are touched by the message. It is not unusual for us to clap after a song or musical number. We also applaud missionaries and special speakers.

Do you believe that membership in a local church is not practiced by almost every denomination? If it is, that wouldn’t be a commonality just with Baptist churches. You seem to be indicating these are common with fundamental Baptists but not with other denominations. I don’t believe that is the case with most of these. How can a local church discipline a member out of the local church, if they are not already a part of that local church?

Church membership is not scriptural.

My site is about the IFB. I don’t include other denominations simply because my site is not about those denominations (and common sense logistical reasons also).

Question: Are new believers instructed to get baptized by immersion right away after salvation in the Bible? The Greek word for baptism does mean total immersion also. No other form was called baptism until several hundred years after Christ.

I’m not aware of scripture that teaches that “new believers [are] instructed to get baptized by immersion right away after salvation” (at least not off the top of my head). Why don’t you share with me where that’s found in the Bible?

I agree that the Greek word for baptism means total immersion. I don’t agree, however, that the intention of the translation was a command for everyone to be immersed and especially not “right away after salvation”. The principle behind baptism is a public display of salvation. There is very little significance of baptism beyond that of public display. If someone were to be baptized by sprinkling (say someone with aqua phobia or emphysema who couldn’t be immersed) I don’t think that God would mind or view that as a sin (at least I don’t see scriptural evidence to back that up). I was forced into baptism before I was ready because of the teaching that “new believers [are] instructed to get baptized by immersion right away after salvation” and I wish I hadn’t been because baptism is not something that we should be forced to do. It should be between the individual and God.

My baptism lost its meaning along the way because of the way in which I was forced into it. I regret that that part of my life wasn’t a more meaningful way to create a deeper bond between me and the Lord because of being forced into it before I was ready.

Music. IFB churches all have different standards concerning their music. I have been in worship services in over 300 different IFB churches. I have observed everything from traditional to Christian Rock. Many have more than one service on Sunday morning. In the contemporary service just about anything goes sometimes. Steel guitars, drums, ladies with tambourines, whole orchestra, etc. We prefer more traditional, but throw in a few choruses from the overhead projector. That is what most of our people like. I don’t think you have any authority to decide for us what we should or shouldn’t allow in our services. To say this as kindly as I can, that really isn’t any of your business.

I’m not sure where you came up with the idea that I’m trying to decide what churches should or shouldn’t allow in their services” or why you even said that. Care to expound?

Steve, you have this idea that all IFB churches do things just this certain way. That is absolutely not true. Part of the autonomy of the local Baptist church is that each individual church governs themselves in these areas. That is part of what makes Baptists who they are. Here is a link if you want to add this into the equation of who fundamental Baptists are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_Distinctives. I have collected over 150 science books by the way. I love science. Real science that is, and not what is often passed off as science today. I believe that the majority of scientists and science teachers today cannot recognize where real science ends, and their philosophical worldview begins. That has been a great hindrance to real science. If you want to read a great book on the subject, check out “The Limitations of Scientific Truth” by Nigel Brush. He has a Ph.D. from UCLA and is an assistant professor of geology at Ashland University in Ohio. As a scientist he has conducted archaeological, geological, and environmental fieldwork in England, Canada, New York, Ohio, and California. This is an excellent book and I think you would really enjoy it.

Really? You are really getting resources from Wikipedia? I thought you had a library of resources? I’m not trying to be smart here, just shocked that you would share with me one of the most unreliable sources of information to help your point of view. It just seems rather cheap given the way you’ve promoted your knowledge and experience. Maybe I’m making too big of a deal about it, but it just caught me off guard that’s all. Sorry about that. No insult intended.

I’m really just curious to know why you are talking about science now? I don’t even have any information about science on my site? What do you know of me regarding my beliefs/views on science?

I think you are a bit confused by the difference between fellowship with God, and our relationship with God. They are two different things. Sin has no affect on my relationship with God (I am His child), it does affect my fellowship with God.

First you state: “Just because a Believer has a chronic sin or is living a sinful lifestyle doesn’t mean that God has turned His back on him/her. He will Continue to pursue that person until that person either returns to a relationship with Him or dies.” But in the next sentence you say: “Our relationship with God is not dependent on our behavior.”

On the one hand you talk about a person living a sinful lifestyle either “returns to a relationship with Him or dies.” If he must return to a relationship with Him, that would indicate that they are not “in a relationship with Him.” You can’t return to a relationship if you are still in a relationship. You indicate a person living a sinful lifestyle are out of a relationship with God, but then state our relationship is not dependent upon our behavior. It can’t be both. Then you state it is: “freeing to know that my fellowship with God is not dependent on my behavior.”

You are using fellowship and relationship interchangeably, and they are two different things. My relationship cannot be affected by sin. That is where grace comes in. I will be His child no matter what. That is my relationship. My fellowship is dependent upon my behavior. Interpreted properly, that is what 1 John chapter one is referring to. If I am living in a sinful lifestyle it hurts my fellowship with God. If I walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another. Cleansing in this chapter is like having a clean slate with nothing to break our fellowship. One sin doesn’t break fellowship, living in a sinful lifestyle does. The whole chapter is speaking to Christians. John uses the term “we,” believers, throughout the passage. The first three verses lets you know who the “we” is. Our “joy” is connected to our fellowship.

I think you’ve misunderstood. This is a simple difference between god turning his back on the person sinning (what the IFB teaches and is not scriptural) and a person turning his/her back on God which is what happens. I’m talk about the IFB teaching that we need to earn God’s fellowship by our works. We have a relationship with God because we are his children I agree, but when a person sins it is the person that turns away (breaks fellowship) not God.

The problem with this is that we don’t only commit “ONE” sin at a time. We are fallible human beings constantly sinning all the time. If we only sin “ONE” sin here and there that would mean that we are being perfect during the times we aren’t committing sin. This idea of perfectionism is what I reject and what I speak out against on the site.

I didn’t mention Reformers Unanimous because I thought you had an addiction. You indicated that the IFB churches were so focused on salvation, etc. and were not as concerned about meeting the needs of hurting people. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but I don’t remember the exact statement. It is interesting though that the things people often want the freedom to do, are things that enslave them and take away their freedom. I’m not as concerned about things I might not be able to do, as I am about the victory Christ has given me from things that Satan will try to use to destroy my life. He has set me free. Praise His name. I hope I wasn’t too accusing or derogatory. Take care.

The same goes for a strict standard of living or strict adherence to one particular set of beliefs to the exclusion of all others. The very freedom that this is supposed to provide ends up enslaving that person with traditionalism, works based righteousness, holier-than-though attitude, pride, etc. I appreciate the victory I have in Christ from the temptations and devises of the Devil, but I appreciate just as much the freedoms I have from the institution of Christianity and all the baggage that comes with denominationalism, traditionalism, perfectionism, legalism, etc.

Well, I think I got everything, hopefully. It would be helpful in future emails if you could just talk about one topic at a time. Pick a topic and then when we are ready we can move on to a different topic. I would really like to have an actual discussion at some point rather than an exchange where you email me and I try to defend myself. That’s not a real discussion. There needs to be a healthy interchange of ideas and evidence to back up those ideas. True exploration of the Word of God is needed and I’m game if you are.

Thanks
Steve

Hi Steve,

I really don’t see any purpose in communicating with you any further. You feel you were “abused” by a church that was “IFB,” therefore most “IFB” churches are bad. Every time you say “they,” in regards to what you call the “IFB,” you are referring to me, because I am a fundamental Baptist. The majority of fundamental Baptist churches are good churches, and I’m not going to change my name because of a few bad ones, or because you say I should. The things you are saying are not true. You can try to spin that another way, but it is the truth, not that I’m sure you know much of what the truth is. I do not do any of the things you have accused me of, nor has my church. I’ve tried to explain this to you, but you refuse to acknowledge it. The majority of fundamental Baptist churches are good churches. Most of the things you are rebelling against are true of fundamental Christianity, not fundamental Baptists. You are just looking for excuses.

According to you, only using the King James Bible is abusive, tithing is abusive, getting baptized as soon as you are saved is abusive, not associating with those living in a sinful lifestyle is abusive, even going to church is abusive. I’m sure you’ll add more to your attack list as time goes on. Most of the claims you have made concerning extremes in the church are not true of most fundamental Baptist churches, when you claim they are you are lying. I’m not going to participate in your pitty-party any further. Good bye Steve. The attacks you are making against good fundamental Baptist churches you will stand before God and have to answer for some day. You won’t be able to reason it away with Him. I don’t have any more time for your foolishness. You are a wicked vindictive person.

In His Service,
Arv Edgeworth

Hi Arv,

Well, I told you I wasn’t going to tolerate your name calling and bullying any more so this needs to be over anyway. Every time I think we are finally getting somewhere you throw a little temper tantrum and start calling me names. I’ll not tolerate it anymore.

Anyway, I certainly appreciate you providing a shining example of what I speak out against on the site. I’m looking forward posting this on my site for all to see just how bad the IFB is. You represent them well.

I don’t see Jesus in you at all, but that’s not what the IFB is interested in anyway right – just trying to cram your legalism down people’s throats? I sure hope that the way you’ve treated me won’t harm your reputation as an evangelist once people see the way you treat others who disagree with you.

You will be in front on God one day as well my friend. I wonder what He will say to you for the way you’ve treated me and others in the name of IFB “truth”?

Good luck with following your man made traditions and religion. I’ll continue to follow Christ.

Steve

Hi Steve,

I hope you will read this whole email with an open mind. Don’t try to think of some way to refute what I am saying, just give some thought to it to see if there might be some truth to it. If you publish any of our private emails on your site I will possibly consider pursuing legal recourse. Depending on if it is slanderous or not. I don’t think I have called you any names, and if anyone is throwing temper tantrums that would probably be you. Every angry statement you have made about the “IFB” as you call it, is slanderous towards myself and every other fundamental Baptist. You just don’t get it. The 25 million or so Baptist churches out there that are good churches and following Christ and carrying out the great commission, in your thinking you are trying to hold responsible for allowing the abuse you claim happened to you in one or two other churches. They are not part of an organization, they are separate autonomous churches. You can’t hold all Baptists responsible for what a few are doing. Under the broad generalization that you have wrongly named abuse, every church of any denomination would be included. I guess that is why you feel justified in not attending church, and in doing so you somehow mistakenly think you are following Christ. Justification by redefining everything to fit your own view of what is true and what isn’t.

I believe the admonition was going into all the world and preach the gospel, not attacking all Christians for what you perceive a few bad ones have done to you. Paul’s admonition to the church at Ephesus was: “And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.” 4:32

Steve, you need help. Please seek out a good counselor. You are attacking the wrong people and arriving at the wrong conclusions. Holding onto this hateful vindictive attitude against all Baptists (and most Christians) is not going to help you heal from the wrong you perceive has happened to you in the past. In your present state of mind I don’t think you can clearly separate the clear teaching of scripture from a possible excessive abuse of that teaching, if it exists anywhere but in your mind.

As it says in Hebrews 10:25 in the NLT: “And let us not neglect our meeting together, as some people do, but encourage one another, especially now that the day of his return is drawing near.” The King James Bible says it this way: “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” I believe Jesus is coming back very soon. It is important for you to get into a good church where you can study the scriptures together, encourage one another, and prepare yourself for our Lord’s soon return. You are missing the big picture that is right in front of you. God accomplishes His will and purpose today through the local church. Everything that is attempted for Him needs to be in, through, and out of a local church, not a para-church group. That is the way God has chosen to work. That is why this is called “the church age.”

I believe the whole premise of your website is wrong. To stay out of church and sit around and hate Baptists is just what Satan wants. God could use you in a so much greater way if you would allow Him to. What you are doing is not going to build up the kingdom.

Where do you think the majority of people are finding Christ as their savior today? In fundamental Baptist churches. What churches do you think Satan would most want to keep people out of? Wherever they are most likely to get saved. Fundamental Baptists are just mainline Christians that have been doing God’s will from the beginning. If instead of doing all we can to reach people with the gospel in the time we have left, we spend our time attacking other Christians and making it harder for them to reach the lost, who is getting the benefit here? It isn’t Christ and His kingdom.

You have two choices Steve: follow Christ in trying to seek and to save that which was lost, or follow your revenge motivated path to disrupting Christ’s work. If you are truly following Christ, it will result in Him saying “Well done, though good and faithful servant,” when He comes. I hope you will take a long hard look at what your motivation is, and what the results will likely be. Be honest with yourself about what you would really like to accomplish through your website. Christ does have a plan for your life, it may include speaking out against evil, it will not include calling evil those who are not. Revenge isn’t the answer Steve. Even if it were, it would be against those who actually did the harm, and it would be Christ giving out the punishment, not you. Those that did the harm is not some “IFB” organization that doesn’t exist anywhere but in your mind. No matter how many times you say it, it will still not make it a reality.

What if you were abused? What do you think God’s will for your life would be, in relation to those who abused you?

Do you think you were abused more than Christ Himself was abused? What did He say? “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” What were Paul’s words again? The NLT says it this way: “Instead, be kind to each other, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God through Christ has forgiven you.” It is quite obvious you have not forgiven your abusers, or you would not be involved in your current endeavors. I would be glad to try to help you Steve, I really would. Another test of your forgiveness would be this: how often do you pray for the good of those whom you perceive have abused you? Have you prayed that God would help them to apply the scriptures correctly and see their error? Are you praying for the other good churches that they will not fall into the same extremes? If not, why not? Wouldn’t that seem more likely to be what God would want you to do, rather than lump them all together and try to hurt all of them? Try to put another spin on it, or define it a different way, it is what it is.

I know we are human. It is harder for us to truly forgive and forget. Until you no longer hold animosity toward them, you have not truly forgiven them. Another part of the problem is this. Probably the real motivation behind what you are doing is not revenge, it is pride. The NLT Proverbs 13:10 says: “Pride leads to conflict; those who take advice are wise.” The King James Bible says it this way: “Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom.” If you have contention towards the “IFB” today, what does the Bible say is the cause for that?

I know you refuse to consider it this way, but there is no “IFB” organization. There are millions of fundamental Baptist Churches, and a lot of other good churches who teach the truth of God’s Word that do not call themselves fundamental Baptist. Each church is responsible for what they teach, and how they teach and apply it. If some are not doing it properly, that does not make the rest of them guilty by association, which you are trying to do. It only works that way in your mind.

I wish you lived close enough to visit our church for a few Sundays and Wednesday nights. Just so you will know. The only time the King James Bible has been mentioned by name in a service in the last five years, was probably one Saturday night when the pastor asked me to speak on: Why we use the King James Bible. It is all we use in our services, we do not dictate to others what they can read or study in their home. I can’t remember the last time any teaching was done on tithing. We just take up the offering, and people are free to give whatever God dictates to their conscience to give. I’m sure there are a lot of people who do not tithe in our church, that is between them and God, and I’m not judging them either way. We don’t tell them, or have any signs up telling them the type of clothing to wear. If someone wore something that was considered to be too revealing, the pastor would probably speak to them in private about it in a loving way.

Because of our bus ministry and Reformers Unanimous ministry, we have a few men that have long hair, or wear an earring, or have tattoos (some women too). We have one fellow that occasionally wears a skirt (he’s Scottish I think). Nobody says anything to them. We just love on them and try to make them feel welcome. You will also see some ladies wearing slacks. If someone should stop coming for awhile or leave, we are encouraged to visit them, pray for and encourage them. It is considered the very last recourse to exclude someone from our fellowship, and it would not be our preference. We would exhaust all other avenues first. It would be with sad hearts we did so, but we have to obey the scriptures in this regards.

Our church tries to be a part of the community. We have allowed the local high school to use our fellowship hall for some testing a few times. We had a special celebration in our city this summer, we were allowed to have a three on three basketball tournament by blocking off two blocks downtown on main-street, while other activities were going on in the park a couple blocks away. Our associate pastor was the assistant football coach for a few years. We have a very good relationship with our city and city officials. We usually try to have a special Sunday morning service each year to honor those in public service. We have had about 35 or so that usually come, like the mayor, sheriff, township supervisors, etc. I don’t think the past governor has come, maybe the new one will.

I don’t know if I have ever heard anyone speak on going to the movies or dancing. Get people to seek holiness and they probably wouldn’t do those things anyway. To be honest, what exactly is the difference between going to the movies, or renting or buying a DVD, or even just watching them on your TV? Some movies we just shouldn’t watch anyway. One possible reason for not going to the movies, what if someone saw you that had a strong personal conviction about this? Whether we hold to the same convictions or not, we are instructed to seek the good of others ahead of ourselves. We are to refrain ourselves from damaging another’s conscience. By the way, just because we can’t be completely holy in this life, doesn’t let us off the hook for trying to live as holy as we can. As it says in Hebrews 12:14 in the NLT: “Work at living in peace with everyone, and work at living a holy life, for those who are not holy will not see the Lord.” That isn’t a scare tactic by a “IFB”er, just what the scriptures admonish us to do.

What you are trying to do on your website, you will not find any justification for in scripture. You will only find verses stating as to why you shouldn’t. How does trying to live at peace with everyone line up with your attitudes and website?

There are two aspects to the “church” in scripture, one refers to a local body, the other the corporate body of Christ. Every born again Christian is a part of Christ’s church, which is called His body corporately. But about 90% of the times that church is mentioned in the New Testament, it refers to a church locally, not His church corporately. Most of the focus is on what goes on in the local church. That is just a fact.

In your mind you have set up a set of guidelines as to how everything is to be viewed. It is truth as you see it. You have developed your particular religious worldview, and you refuse to see it any other way. Truth is truth, and it is not relative. You can perceive some things as truth, that does not mean they are truthful. They can also end up being the opposite of real truth. Step outside your preconceived worldview and try to observe things as they actually are. That sounds easy doesn’t it? You did not form your current religious worldview overnight. It is ingrained in you. This time you have done it to yourself, it was not inflicted by others. This kind of self-abuse is harder to overcome. It could still be considered a form of abuse. Abuse is really a misuse. The real truth probably lies somewhere in between. The truth is out there Steve, at this point in time you have not found it. Don’t be satisfied with self-abuse. You are moving from one type of abuse into another. If you are guilty of anything, it probably starts with self-deception. Only the truth will truly set you free.

In His Service,
Arv Edgeworth

Hi Arv,

I’m not interested in communicating with you anymore. Although your emails have serve to reinforce my thoughts regarding these issues and as much as I would love to continue gathering evidence in the form of your representing what I speak about on the site, I must respectfully ask that you stop contacting me. I told you that your continued verbal abuse would end our conversations and I meant it. So please stop emailing me. I’ll not tolerate your anger and abuse any longer.

Regarding posting our conversation on the site, if you are so sure you have the truth why would you NOT want me to post it on the site? Hmmm, maybe you have something to hide after all.

Anyway, please read our “Terms of Use” which can be found at http://www.baptistdeception.com/terms-of-use/

Email communications become the property of the owners/operators of this site and we have the right to post them on the site as we see fit. We do not make the guarantee that email communications will be private.

By the way slander is a “misrepresentation”. I’m not sure how posting your own words could be considered a misrepresentation since they are YOUR words so good luck with “pursuing legal recourse”.

Oh, one more thing, slander is spoken. In print its libel. So if you talk to an attorney make sure you use the correct terminology.

Steve

This was the end of our conversation. I never replied to his final email for the above stated reasons. I never heard from Arv after that, but conveniently I did get several emails from other IFB pastors scolding me for this site. Here is one of them from a Pastor Dave Williams:

Sir:

Your website is so wrong it is laughable. Independent Baptists are not a denomination. They are just Bible believers. You have obviously never been to college and if so, you don’t have enough intellect to define common terms. I would suggest that you go to school so you won’t make such a fool out of yourself. You might even ask God for wisdom. You certainly have none at this time.

http://www.bible-truth.org/BaptistHistory.html

Pastor David Williams
Bay Area Baptist Church
Largo, Florida 33773
Phone: 727-729-6652
Web: http://bayareabaptistchurch.org
Web: http://ifyoucouldknow.info
Web: http://churchprospecting.com
Web: http://foundationsofmorality.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pastordavidpwilliams

I’ll let that email speak for itself.

I think it’s quite ironic that Arv is an “Evangelist”. I guess to be an evangelist in the IFB you have to evangelize by attacking and verbally abusing people. It is my hope that by posting this, readers will be able to see how dangerous this cult-like denomination really is. I think it’s inexcusable for an evangelist to act this way.

This is how the IFB spreads its message folks, by intimidation and manipulation. How sad it is that people are deceived into believing such lies.

OK, enough venting. Thanks again for reading.

One of my favorite books is Love your God with all Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul by J. P. Moreland. In his book, Moreland offers and encourages the use of tools for the believer to intellectually defend his/her beliefs. Tools such as logic and reasoning help us in the process of spiritual transformation as we use our minds as a filter by which we evaluate the information that the Christian community offers. This was a new concept to me and as I read the book I couldn’t help but feel frustrated that I was never taught this in my IFB experiences.

As a result of this understanding I thought it would be a good idea to include a post about the intellectual component to our faith and the issues that the IFB have with intellectualization or using our minds to worship and draw closer to God.

IFB churches typically teach a kind of intellectual suppression where free thought and open mindedness is discouraged. There is an unfortunate mind set where philosophical questions are at best not understood and at worst not welcome.

When it comes to thinking about the faith, the IFB teaches that thinking is not appropriate. I remember distinctly my churches teaching us that we need to follow what is being taught by the pastor. We were discouraged from thinking about our faith and the Word in ways other then what the IFB taught. Even now as I enjoy knowing God on a more intellectual level I can’t help but feel secluded from the typical church goer who seems to be simply following a predetermined set of beliefs.

The IFB churches I attended also discouraged a sort of emotional response to spirituality. Suppress your emotions and intellect and experience God and the Word on an entirely spiritual plane was the message taught from the pulpit. I remember trying to have discussions with my Sunday School class or parents and being told that we just need to “follow it by faith”.

That was never good enough for me. I feel a certain sense of loss when I think about experiencing God and the Word on a strictly spiritual level. We are more then just spiritual beings. We have a mind, intellect, body and emotions. I believe that God wants us to use them all to experience, worship and draw closer to Him. The IFB would have us be only spiritual beings. To focus only on the spiritual, in my opinion, is to mock the creator and sabotage our full potential for experiencing Him.

For example, I feel extremely close to God when I study or am surrounded by nature. God’s creation draws me close to Him as I think about the miraculous act of life and creation. The awesomeness of His power is intellectually tantalizing to me and it helps me gain a sweeter appreciation for Christ and the work of Creation. If there were no church or formal worship I could still experience God in a way that is uplifting and amazing. Trying to tell IFBers this is met with what amounts to hysteria as they consider the idea of experiencing God in a way that is counter to their way of thinking.

The physical realm brings on a certain spiritual response for me. The IFB teaches that this is wrong and that truly experiencing God is only done in the context of a local IFB church and in the way that they teach.

I remember sharing my thoughts about this topic to an IFB friend. I told him that I grow and mature spiritually as a result reading scientific books that teach me about creation and the wonderful physical processes of nature that sustain life and the awesome power this reflects in the creator. I explained that, as a result, science IS spirituality for me because it allows me to experience God in a unique and appreciative way. Unfortunately, all he knew to do was warn me about neglecting the Bible and that spiritual maturity could really only come from reading the Bible and praying. He admonished that I use the KJV and become a member at a “local Bible believing, Bible preaching church” (in other words an IFB church). It truly was beyond his comprehension to think of spirituality in the context of the emotional/physical.

To me, spirituality is so much more then our just our spirituality. It’s unfortunate that the IFB is so closed off to the greatness that lies beyond their belief system. It’s cultish and abusive to advocate the neglect of other areas of our lives and focus only on the spiritual.

I’ve moved our discussions to a separate page so that I can feel free to share my thoughts without worrying about taking up space in the comments section. This will still be available for all to see.

For those of you following along please see the IFB and KJV Deception pages to get background on how this discussion started.

A faithful reader asked the question; “Does the IFB incorrectly teach that the Believer loses fellowship with God when he/she sins?”. That question got me thinking about the topic of losing fellowship with God and it brought up some memories of what I was taught in the IFB church. I’ve come to the conclusion that this is yet another major error in the exegesis of scripture committed by the IFB.

Unfortunately, this concept of losing fellowship with Christ when the Believer sins is pervasive among the teachings of most modern Christian denominations. The teaching goes something like this: When a Believer sins he/she loses fellowship with Christ. If a Believer wants to restore that lost fellowship, he/she needs to repent of his/her sin and be forgiven.

In my personal experience with the IFB I was taught this and the idea that we lose fellowship with Christ when we sin has always troubled me. I remember as a child and teen feeling extremely conscientious about my behavior and thoughts because I was terrified of “losing fellowship with Christ.” In my mind the only way to have fellowship with Christ was to be in a constant state of prayer for forgiveness. I remember trying so hard to be in a constant state of prayer so that I restored fellowship with God as quickly as possible. It became exhausting, but because of the fear of “breaking fellowship with God” I kept on confessing every single thing I did that was sinful. I was even careful enough to confess things which I thought may be sins so that I didn’t lose fellowship with God. I remember that my prayers consumed me because there was always something I had to ask forgiveness for such as having an impure thought, a poor attitude, delayed obedience, not doing my best in school, being lazy, and the list went on forever. It was exhausting and I never felt that I had the time or capacity for anything other than asking for forgiveness.

I remember thinking that it would be more practical to wait till a certain time of the day to ask forgiveness, but as I went throughout my day I couldn’t help but focus on all the wrong things I was doing. I didn’t want to wait until that time of day when I confessed my sins up until that point because I didn’t want to be ‘out of fellowship’ with God for that length of time. Freedom came when I realized how wrong this idea of “losing fellowship with God when we sin” is.

Someone once scolded me, when discussing this issue, that I was sacrificing the truth for the convenience of not having to pray constantly and that I needed to work on my behavior rather than try to change what the scripture teaches (that we lose fellowship with God when we sin).

As I contemplated what this person was saying I came up with only 4 available options:

Option 1 was to continue living my life consumed by all the wrong I was doing and remain in a constant state of prayer so as to maintain as much fellowship with God as possible. This option wasn’t working for me and was becoming so burdensome that trying to maintain fellowship itself because a road block to maintaining fellowship.

Option 2 was to just give up all together and forget about fellowship with God since it was impossible for me to do what was necessary to maintain fellowship with God. This option wasn’t a good one for me since I value my relationship with God.

Option 3 was to not worry about constantly trying to maintain fellowship with God and just go through my day and if I sinned then so be it, I would confess it later. This option didn’t appeal to me because, like I said earlier, I didn’t want to be out of fellowship with God for the day. After all what good is it to be out of fellowship with God during the day and then in fellowship with God during the night while I was sleeping?

Option 4 and the only other option I can think of was to delve into scripture and figure out for myself why this was so burdensome to me and perhaps I would see a better alternative to what I was being taught. I ended up seeing a very different picture of who God is and what He expects of us. As a result I chose this option and I’ve never looked back.

Now that I’m free from this manipulative line of thought, I can clearly see that trying to maintain fellowship with God by my efforts is an impossible task. We are constantly sinning or in a state of sin. We are imperfect human beings. It is impossible for us to not sin. We often sin and don’t even realize it. God does not refuse fellowship with us just because we sin. In fact, the opposite is true. Everything I read about God in the Bible is about a God that pursues us and especially pursues us in times of sin and unrighteousness.

Michael Youssef writes about this very topic in his book “The God Who Pursues Us”. He writes on his website:

At the beginning of Luke 15, we see the religious leaders murmuring against Jesus: “But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, ‘This man welcomes sinners and eats with them’” (v. 2). The Pharisees considered anyone who admitted his need for God’s forgiveness as ignorant and weak. Though they studied the Scriptures, they were far from knowing and comprehending the heart of God.

Jesus was not intimidated by their intellectual arrogance or elitist attitude toward faith. He responded to their muttering by telling the parable of the lost sheep. “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them,” Jesus said. “Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep’” (Luke 15:4-6).

As I read that excerpt, I remember being taught that the ‘lost sheep’ represented the unsaved person or unbeliever. As I grew in my knowledge of the Bible, however, I found out that the exact opposite is true. Christ being referenced as the Shepard and Believers as sheep is pervasive in the Bible, especially the New Testament. This parable represents a Believer who as ‘gone astray’. Lost here, by the way, doesn’t refer to being lost or unsaved as we think of it today. The idea is a sheep that has gone astray or been separated from the flock in some way. Christ pursues that ‘lost sheep’ until found and returned to the fold.

I realize and believe that blatant and chronic sin hurts God and there is something to the idea that our blatant sin causes stress in our relationship with God, just like doing something wrong can strain a relationship we have with a family member or friend. But God isn’t human and I reallly think that the IFB has taken this way out of context. This idea of sin breaking fellowship with God is often used to coerce people into a legalistic righteousness. I see it being used by the IFB to make people feel guilty for not living perfect lives or at least for not striving for perfection. Some leaders of the IFB will even go as far as to say that if you aren’t repentant from your sin you probably aren’t saved. I find this rather arrogant and judgmental. Just because a Believer has a chronic sin or is living a sinful lifestyle doesn’t mean that God has turned His back on him/her. He will continue to pursue that person until that person either returns to a relationship with Him or dies.

Our relationship with God is not dependent on our behavior. We do not have to do anything to have fellowship with God. Jesus took care of what was needed to have fellowship with God when He died on the cross. When God looks at me He sees the Blood of Christ, NOT my sin. It’s freeing to know that my fellowship with God is not dependent on my behavior.

When the IFB teaches this they often use Old Testament scriptures to support their belief. What they fail to realize, however, is that the Old Testament was governed by the ceremonial laws of cleanness which no longer apply to us NT Christians. The purpose of breaking fellowship in the OT was to avoid that which was unclean. NT Christians are purified and cleansed by the Blood of Christ’s work on the Cross and no longer need to worry about ceremonial cleanliness.

Paul tells the church at Corinth in I Corinthians 1:8-10 that God has called the believer into fellowship with Christ and is faithful to that person. It doesn’t say that God has called the believer into fellowship with Christ and is faithful unless that person sins! How ridiculous.

The IFB also uses passage like 1 John 1:5-7 to teach that Christians lose fellowship with Christ when they sin. This is simply an unfortunate misinterpretation of scripture. This passage is talking about salvation not sinning. The “walking in darkness” mentioned in this passage is referring to the darkness of those who are not believers. It has nothing to do with a Believer who sins. Believers who sin are not walking in darkness because they are Believers. They may be walking in sin, but not darkness since darkness is a reference to being a non-Believer. If you notice, as the passage continues, verse 9 is the famous I John 1:9 “But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” It’s interesting to note that the verse stops with the thought of cleansing rather than restoring fellowship. The verse doesn’t say “…and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness and restore lost fellowship.” It ends with a cleansing from unrighteousness nothing more because nothing more is needed.

There are many more passages that the IFB uses to support this idea such as Acts 8:13-24, 1 Corinthians 5:1-7, Matthew 18:15-17 and Galatians 6:1. The purpose of this post is not to address each instance of scriptural manipulation in this area, but to inform and help people see that it is a mistake to think that fellowship with God is broken when a Believer sins.

Some churches use this concept to teach that a person can lose his/her salvation as a result of sin. I hope we all know that that is incorrect. I think the IFB does a good job, in my experience, of not taking this idea that far, however, I would imagine, given the diversity of IFB churches, that there are those that do take it too far.

This concept is also used in a manipulative way to justify disassociating with people who are hard to get along with or who have some type of addiction or chronic/habitual sin they are struggling with. It’s easier for a church to teach that we should break fellowship with that person rather then try and help him/her which I think is a shame. I’ve been to some IFB churches that teach the congregation to ‘dis fellowship’ or permanently cut off the relationship from people they deem are sinning “too much”.

This leads people to believe that they need to somehow play the role of Holy Spirit to try and convict others of what they feel is a need to restore fellowship. Many relationships have been broken as a result of this teaching. Wouldn’t it be nice if we helped each other rather than turn our back on someone because we are being taught that God turns His back on people who sin? How sad it is to think of all the people who are so confused and tormented by this teaching that they simply reject the faith because they feel that they can’t measure up! I can’t stress enough how freeing it is to know that I don’t have to be sin free in order for God to like me and want to have fellowship with me.

I heard a great message from John Piper entitled ‘Jesus and the Law’ and thought it would be a good idea to share it. He talks about some of the very things this site speaks about. A lot of things he says compliment the messages of this site very well. I don’t know much about John Piper, but this caught my attention. I would encourage you to take a few minutes to listen, especially if you are questioning that we need to follow a set of “standards” in order to live righteous lives.

Summary: Christianity is about developing a relationship with Christ, not following a set of rules and standards

Would love to hear your thoughts about it.

Enjoy