Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) Deception

Exposing the Dangerous Teachings of the Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) Denomination

Is the IFB a cult?


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

348 Comments

Add a Comment
  1. “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.”

    You just simply hammered it right there friend. Oh how I wish these good IFB folks, who claim to follow their bibles so closely, would step out of their traditions for just a moment, and get their eyes on Jesus and their bibles and let the Holy Spirit speak to their hearts regarding this issue. How much blessing it would be for them, as it is for those of us that have come out of this awful, man-focused religion.

    I must simply thank you again for providing this forum and sharing your heart to help hurting folks that have been damaged through this (cultish system) I think of the young teenager, Katie that recently commented here, perhaps she will continue to read and investigate the claims of her church and perhaps come to a new and better understanding of our God and how He works and moves among His people.

    1. I couldn’t agree more, Greg. Thanks for your support and for your thoughtful, gental way of communicating.

    2. I have an example of a Cult in Mexico Maine. I was going there until I woke up and saw the truth of this Independent Baptist Church . I am an Ordained Christian Minister and I was judgmatised and I tried to correct the Pastor on his sin and he basically called me a loser. It reads in the Bible , that we can not Judge anyone at all. God can only judge us at all. I am writing this passage just to wake up the brainwashed people in our Country , that think Independent Baptist Churches are good for a Christian. I have seen the Reformed Baptist and now Independent Baptist. I am going back to the Southern Baptist Teaching for now on. This is where I was belonging too , when I left with Florida. God Bless America.

  2. I would like to say, we should keep in mind the fact that those who identify themselves as IFB are a diverse group. There are some IFB’s that I would agree and associate with. However, the very nature of being Independently governed leads to great diversity.
    I want to be careful about labeling any church a cult. On the other hand, when a church functions like a cult, I think we should say so.
    There is only one reason why I have said that some IFB churches function like a cult.
    (1.) They elevate traditions and human authority to the place that only the Scriptures should have in the life of a christian.
    Being a Christian is about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that effects every aspect of our lives. Jesus Christ is our rightful Lord. He deserves first place in our lives because He loved us and gave Himself for us. The Bible is the christians final authority because it is the very word of Jesus Christ Himself.
    Cults happen when leaders place their traditions or their authority on par with Scripture. Of course, cult leaders will never admit to placing their teachings beside Scripture. Cult leaders gain control by enforcing traditions and their own unbiblical version of authority to gain control. What ends up happening is you have people who are following a human leader, rather than Christ and His word. There should be no doubt that the methods used by cult leaders can be very deceptive. Scripture is used (and twisted) to formulate false doctrine. Men who promote such ideas rely on personal charm and pretentious piety. In the words of Scripture, they are “wolves in sheep’s clothing”.
    I recently read a quote that reminded me of my need to “examine everything carefully, and hold fast to that which is good”. “True wisdom is not found in seeing similarities in things which differ, but in discerning differences among those things that resemble one another”.
    I pray that God would give me the light I need to make decisions that honor Him.

  3. I stumbled upon your site while searching for something else. While I must say I am sorry for what you and others have experienced, please remember that not all Independant Baptist churches are cut from the same cloth. I have been a member of one for twenty years and have not experienced the horrors some have published, nor has anyone in our congregation (that I am aware of). The same things have occured in Catholic, Mormon and Methodist churches as well as Baptist. Please remember that before you make sweeping generalizations about a particular denomination that no two are entirely alike. For example, while our pastor and most members do believe in the KJV only, the pastor does not force others to drop the version they are carrying before they walk through the doors. The Pastor says that it is up to the Holy Spirit to convict someone to about their Bibles, not him. He encourages folks to keep packing what they are reading. And in the twenty years we have been there, I have been to baby showers for unwed mothers and child molesters were thrown out on their ear to keep them away from the kids. What you have described on this website in no way describes the church I attend. No one is forced into a ‘box’ and no one is told how to dress their women (the pastor’s wife wears pants). The pastor not only listens to the opinions of his congregation (he is a very take charge man, but does not see the point in lording over people) but also admits his faults freely. We have had families leave our church to attend a smaller congregation (ours has grown), but we remain friends and there are no hard feelings or ‘shunnings’ for doing so. Of course, our church has its warts – good grief, no church or pastor is perfect – I only think it is a gross crime that so many have been hurt beyond repair ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’, no matter the label. Just thought I would take the time to let you know that just because it is an ‘IFB’ church, it doesn’t always follow the pattern described here. Thanks!

    1. I completely agree with you Marie.We’ve been members of different IF churches in the past 20 years .Moving to different towns with my job,and I must say that out of the 5 different IFB churches that we have served in…only 1 comes remotely close to what has been described in this article.We DID leave that church due to indifferences,but I’d have to say for the biggest part…this article couldn’t be further from the experience we have in our church,and we too believe that the Bible IS the FINAL authority. NOT MAN…Like Marie said…Please don’t put us ALL in this box,because this is nowhere near how we worship the Lord…

  4. This article was one of the most in-depth I have yet read about the IFB and its cultish tendencies.

    From my experience growing up in the hotbed of IFB (Hammond, IN), I must say that I think various churches differ in their tendencies toward being cultish. I have no clash of conscience when I readily admit that I was raised in a cult. Many of the insiders who have escaped that place would agree, but I’m not so sure about the smaller outlying IFB churches.

    Marie – Your experience differs greatly from the core tenets of IFB. I am surprised that your church is still labeled as IFB with the leniency in its standards. Most IFBers would not consider your church to be truly IFB. I’m happy that you are content with your church, though.

    Greg – You had some tremendous thoughts about this forum and site. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

    Thanks again for this blog post. I clipped it to Evernote for future reference.

  5. I have been in the ifb for twenty years,since I was 16,and some of the things you mentioned sounded more personal than factual.You are trying to mark all the ifb churches as cultish because of your bad experiences.You talk about dressing rite,and seperation like it,s not Biblical.Some people just make excuses,because they want to live loose.The Bible still says -Come out from among the world and be ye seperate.-1 john says -If any man love the world the love of the father is not in him.-You may not agree with that but it,s still Bible.I thank God for men who have enough guts to preach the truth,and not compromise scripture.If you are saved God exspects you to live rite sir!TO WALK RITE!TO DRESS RITE!and so on.Don,t bash ifb for trying to live according to his word,take it up with God.One day you will take it up with God.I agree that some things in the ifb churches are traditional,but no two churches are the same,but all churches should be held accountible to Gods word.Thier are plenty of Bible verses that deal with seperation,clean living,abstaining from the world,holiness,and so on.You make it sound like just a bunch of rules,and they are if thats how you,re trying to get to heaven,but those that are saved want to live rite.they are not just rules we have to live by ,but rules we want to live by,because those that are saved love the saviour.We live in a world where people want to claim the name of Christ,and live like heathens.Some people just don,t want to submit to the authority of Gods word.We want the Bible to get rite with us,but it,s everybody else that needs to get rite with the Bible.

  6. @tommy dutton
    Can you please list some references of the versus used to support your response
    Thank you.

  7. @john

    I’m afraid that Tommy is your typical blog troll, John. He obviously can’t read or write (or should I say “rite” LOL). He’s just a parrot, blindly regurgitating what the IFB teaches. It’s pathetic. So anyway I wouldn’t hold my breath for a reply if I were you.

  8. good article Steve. I haven’t been around your website recently but this article was good.

  9. Bob,

    you said “Jesus Christ is our rightful Lord. He deserves first place in our lives because He loved us and gave Himself for us.” I agree with you. If you get some free time I recommend taking a look at the short video I posted below. its only about two minutes long. I don’t agree with everything that guy teaches but I think that short video is a good one.

    http://www.gracewalk.org/apps/articles/web/articleid/68703/columnid/6277/default.asp

    with his stripes we are healed,

    Child of God

  10. John 10:10,
    You make a good point there. I think what I was trying to say is that cult type leaders usurp the rightful place that Jesus Christ should have in our lives. Cult leaders will persuade people to follow their standards, traditions, and teachings rather than directing people to follow and imitate Christ. The end result is, people who follow these men have a man centered form of religion rather than a single-minded devotion to Christ.
    I often wonder how any true believers can remain in an environment that so clearly deviates from the truth of Scripture. Jesus said, ” My sheep hear My voice and they follow Me.” I think that those who truly know Christ must feel unsettled in a cult-like environment. Either way, God knows those who are His. We need to listen to hear the voice of our Savior above all others. May God give us the ability to listen to and follow Jesus.

  11. @greg
    I have wondered if perhaps God is pouring out His judgment on those who follow traditions of men rather than the True Shepherd. John 10:3-5,27.
    He is Faithful. He will eventually lead those who truly belong to Him out of “religion” and not give them His Peace as they sit in the pews under those who are false teachers.His sheep will not be satisfied with this false “fodder” of men. He will lead them out to where they will find True meat, even if it means home studying and fellowshipping with those like-minded. Think of the millions of believers world-wide who gather underground, because of the persecution they suffer. We, whom the Lord has led out of the IFB ‘cult’, are suffering very real persecution also.Praise God for mercy poured out on those of us desiring real Truth, for giving us eyes to see through the Pharisaical legalism. He drew us. All glory goes to Him. He allowed for us to be there. One of His many reasons for having us there for a time, then leading us out, are part of growing us in grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ.

    Thank you for your boldness in Him. Praying His protection and added discernment for all those belonging to Him.

  12. @bob
    It fascinates me that the IFB as well as, dare I say, many denominations will call the Roman Catholic organization a ‘cult’, yet fail to recognize that much of their own teachings are the same with a different title.

    “Cult leaders will persuade people to follow their standards, traditions, and teachings rather than directing people to follow and imitate Christ. The end result is, people who follow these men have a man centered form of religion rather than a single-minded devotion to Christ.”

    Very well said, brother. As you have said and I also in my prior post, I believe that anyone who is truly one of His sheep will NOT remain in an environment that so clearly deviates from truth of Scripture. They (as we know from experience of this) will be led out due to spiritual hunger. He Who is Faithful will lead us to where we will find real and true meat of His Word.
    Yes, it is only Him who gives us the ability as well as the desire to listen to the voice of the True Shepherd, Jesus Christ and follow His voice only. Praying that we would be sensitive to His Spirit in us.

  13. There are all kinds of churches across america and the world. Within these churches are different groups (or denominations/non-denominations) of people gathering for fellowship, there will always be the proverbial “bad apples that ruin the bunch”. That, I am sure, most people would agree with and find to be a reasonable statement. This, many times, turns into folks making blanket statements or proclamations about a whole group in a particular type of church (especially if a action or act is observed more than one time in multiple different church groups).

    While this is understandable, we all tend to point out a trend with very limited samplings to support a particular claim that would justify, certainly, any blanket position on the entire church group in question. That is actually very rarely justifiable to do. One obvious question is, “who really determines the bad and good apple” positions?”as it were. The answer is, in my opinion, for many things it is difficult to say unless it is directly and clearly indicated in scripture (no alluding, suggestions, or hints towards allowed). There is a lot fewer clearly indicated commandments that are crisp and firm which direct us as Christians to do one thing or another than many church group leaders would have us to believe as well.

    The summary of the problem in bible-believing church groups as I see it (IFB or otherwise): A “things to do list” is preached and taught of what to do and not do MUCH more than developing an intimate and real fellowship with the Lord Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. Because of this, there is a outward appearance of seeming holiness through the observation of the things to do rather than the true daily fellowship with Christ through the Holy Spirit. Many times, people are outward observing this things and look good on the outside but inside they are crying out for help wondering if this is what Christianity is all about! This, I am convinced, is a MAJOR problem in our church groups.

    However, it is my opinion, the interesting thing is that when that relationship is developed in a strong and REAL way, then the “things to do list” becomes much shorter and manageable (manageable because He is doing it through us and guides us all individually into the things we should do naturally). That which we should be doing in the world will naturally happen in each individual life (as it will be a life controlled by the Holy Spirit of God). His yoke is easy and burden is light when you intimately walk in fellowship with the Saviour each day (Matthew 11:28-30). If I would ever be a pastor of a congregation, then this is what I would preach, teach, and encourage every chance I could! People deserve this truth…it is freeing yet it is in no way giving the saints permission to live as they wish in the flesh. This, in my opinion, is a MAJOR and cardinal truth which will allow Christians to walk day to day with Christ in this world.

    The summary solution: Call all Bible-Believing churches to start spending as much and more time preaching how their people can walk with the Lord Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit on a day to day basis rather than a “things to do list” as the outward manifestation of the Lord Jesus Christ in each individual life with result & the the “things” will work itself out.

    Unfortunately, the brother in this article does have valid points (hopefully the above with help some so that they are not confused with the church group scene mess in our day).

  14. Greg :
    While this is understandable, we all tend to point out a trend with very limited samplings to support a particular claim that would justify, certainly, any blanket position on the entire church group in question. That is actually very rarely justifiable to do.

    Really Greg? It’s not justifiable to report on abuse unless we have a larger sample to report on??? So are you saying that we should just let abuse go unpunished or unreported since we each can only testify on “limited samplings”? Do you really believe that or are you not understanding the issues at hand?

    You are asking the impossible. All we can do is report on our experiences. It’s virtually impossible for one person to get a large enough sampling to satisfy that request. This website has thousands of comments from people all over the globe testifying that what Steve is saying is correct. Is that still not enough for you? How much is enough?

    Greg :
    Call all Bible-Believing churches to start spending as much and more time preaching how their people can walk with the Lord Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit on a day to day basis rather than a “things to do list” as the outward manifestation of the Lord Jesus Christ in each individual life with result & the the “things” will work itself out.

    Now this I can agree with. Well said! A heart change is needed before outward changes can take place. The IFB gets this reversed. They try to change the outward behaviors first in an attempt to make the heart follow. It just doesn’t work that way.

  15. Hi everyone just to clarify, the above is another Greg, I’m the one that’s been around more than a year, and posted first on this thread.

    Hi New Greg – Welcome!

    Ditto what Katie said!

  16. My friend, I do observe how you would consider ibf churches cults, just as I consider all religious groups cultish. I do follow and adore one person, The Lord Jesus Christ; and one book, the Bible (the KJV issue would take a lot of time to detail). Some, I agree, take issues and make them equal with Bible, but I must declare that if following Christ and His book makes me cultish, I plead “Guilty as charged!”
    “Independent” – declares our idividual soul liberty, and the autonomy (self governing)of the assembly. “Fundamental”- means back to the basics according to great NFL and college football coaches; and I would be delighted if Christians (IFB and others) would all get back to Bible Basics. “Baptist”- is s doctrinal declaration of independence and Bible fundamentalism. What you see as IFBers, sometimes are just zealots who love their Lord and those who are in leadership. Are they mislead at times? Possibly, but usually not into anything that would be harmful. It is not wrong to honor God with your money, modesty, music, & movies. The desire is that IFBers and all Christians would do so, but not based upon demanding law but of a deep dedicated love.

  17. Richard :
    My friend, I do observe how you would consider ibf churches cults, just as I consider all religious groups cultish. I do follow and adore one person, The Lord Jesus Christ; and one book, the Bible (the KJV issue would take a lot of time to detail).

    Feel free to share. I seriously doubt that you would say anything that hasn’t been said and rebutted a thousand times before.

    Some, I agree, take issues and make them equal with Bible, but I must declare that if following Christ and His book makes me cultish, I plead “Guilty as charged!”

    Can you please show us where, on this site, anyone has said that “following Christ and His book” makes them cultish?

    “Independent” – declares our idividual soul liberty, and the autonomy (self governing)of the assembly. “Fundamental”- means back to the basics according to great NFL and college football coaches; and I would be delighted if Christians (IFB and others) would all get back to Bible Basics.

    Can you please tell us why, then, does the IFB focus on everything BUT the fundamentals?

    “Baptist”- is s doctrinal declaration of independence and Bible fundamentalism. What you see as IFBers, sometimes are just zealots who love their Lord and those who are in leadership. Are they mislead at times? Possibly, but usually not into anything that would be harmful.

    Then please tell me, sir, why so many have been harmed then?

    It is not wrong to honor God with your money, modesty, music, & movies. The desire is that IFBers and all Christians would do so, but not based upon demanding law but of a deep dedicated love.

    Then why dies the IFB demand such strict adherence to standards and law?

    I would love to hear your explanations to these quandaries.

  18. @Katie
    My friend, I am the one who said that by the definition of a cult which is used in the original article, we are all cultish. Please read the Random House dictionary definitions as stated in the original article.

    As to why some IFB people focus on everything but Bible fundamentals, the answer is easy. They are not what they claim to be. I know many of them and have discussed this point in detail.

    As to why people are hurt by these churches, the answer is easy again. There are two sides to this though. One is that it is not the church or their doctrine that hurt the people, but that it is the prideful followers who do not know Christ or His Scriptures who hurt people. It is kind of like the old saying, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” For example, If a church holds what some call extreme dress standards, the standards are not hurting anybody. What hurts people is when some idiot attacks them for not being convicted of the same. Have you ever noticed that the anti-pharisaical movement is as hateful against the pharisees as the pharisees are against them?

    Lastly, there is the question of why does the IFB demand such strict adherance to standard and law? We do not. Remember, I already declared that if IFB stands for Independent Fundamental Baptist then each church is “Independent.” You have, as many, have thrown out the truth to prove your point. You can not link us together and believe we are Independent at the same time. Some nuts claim a name, but deny the truth.

    Just so you know, I was saved in a Baptist church that claimed to be Independent & Fundamental, I was trained in a church that claimed the same. I have seen them split, and I have seen the sin of the pharisees and the sins of the anti-pharisees. I have been hurt by both sides. One group abandoned myself and my wife because I believed that it would be better to witness than spend time watching TV. (I went out to witness, and did not own a TV.) This was the people who my wife and I loved, had led me to the Savior, etc.

    Another time I was shunned by the other side, when I disagreed with the pastor concerning some things going on at the church.

    The result of both of these cases was bitterness for a season until I realized that Jeremiah 17:9 was true. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it.” I figure that is why God tells us to “Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?” God knows that men will fail you and me, but that these things are meant to draw us close to the only one who can truly be trusted; the One who will never leave us nor forsake us. Thank the Lord for grace and glory which is found during our times of trial, and perfected after we have suffered a while.

    23 years after being birthed into the family of God. I am not ashamed to claim Christ and His church. His churches happen to be Independent of all ecclesiastical organizations, Fundamental in actions, and Baptistic in doctrine.

  19. My friend, I am the one who said that by the definition of a cult which is used in the original article, we are all cultish. Please read the Random House dictionary definitions as stated in the original article.

    Your opposition then would be with the dictionary rather then the article or this site wouldn’t it?

    Even so, I’m afraid you missed the entire point of the article – or ignored it, not sure which.

    As to why some IFB people focus on everything but Bible fundamentals, the answer is easy. They are not what they claim to be. I know many of them and have discussed this point in detail.

    Your slight of hand by cleverly shifting focus from the IFB as a whole to “some IFB people” shows your tendency towards manipulation. It’s more than simply “some IFB people”. To think otherwise, especially after reading this site and the thousands of testimonies to the affirmative, is nothing more than self deception. I would encourage you to wake up (for lack of a better term) and see the hurt and pain all around you that’s done in the name of the IFB.

    As to why people are hurt by these churches, the answer is easy again. There are two sides to this though. One is that it is not the church or their doctrine that hurt the people, but that it is the prideful followers who do not know Christ or His Scriptures who hurt people. It is kind of like the old saying, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” For example, If a church holds what some call extreme dress standards, the standards are not hurting anybody. What hurts people is when some idiot attacks them for not being convicted of the same.

    Again you’ve missed the point.

    Have you ever noticed that the anti-pharisaical movement is as hateful against the pharisees as the pharisees are against them?

    No I can’t say that I have ever notices that. I’m not even aware of an “anti-pharisiacal movement”. Could you point me in the direction of this movement or more information about it? I would love to learn more about it.

    I’m not sure why you would be against “anti-pharisiacal movement” anyway. Do you not want to see the practices of the modern day pharisees aboloshed? You seem like you do, yet you hold so strongly to the teachings of modern pharisees such as the IFB. This is confusing to me. I would love to hear you flesh this out some more.

    Lastly, there is the question of why does the IFB demand such strict adherance to standard and law? We do not.

    No??? Really??? You’re going to try and tell me that the IFB doesn’t require strict adherance to standards of living? You are either lying or blind – sorry but I can’t believe that you would seriously deny that the IFB has strict adherance to standards of living and Biblical laws.

    Remember, I already declared that if IFB stands for Independent Fundamental Baptist then each church is “Independent.” You have, as many, have thrown out the truth to prove your point. You can not link us together and believe we are Independent at the same time. Some nuts claim a name, but deny the truth.

    I’m afraid that we have different opinions of what the “truth” is regarding the IFB then. As Steve has pointed out numerous times throughout this site, it’s not us that “link [the IFB] together” The IFB is linked together by common teachings, doctrine, “standards” and traditions. The simple fact that the IFB calles itself the IFB is a form of “linking together”. I would encourage you to read the “‘Independent” Deception’ article for more information. Steve has articulated this much better than I ever could.

    Just so you know, I was saved in a Baptist church that claimed to be Independent & Fundamental, I was trained in a church that claimed the same. I have seen them split, and I have seen the sin of the pharisees and the sins of the anti-pharisees. I have been hurt by both sides. One group abandoned myself and my wife because I believed that it would be better to witness than spend time watching TV. (I went out to witness, and did not own a TV.) This was the people who my wife and I loved, had led me to the Savior, etc. Another time I was shunned by the other side, when I disagreed with the pastor concerning some things going on at the church. The result of both of these cases was bitterness for a season until I realized that Jeremiah 17:9 was true. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it.”

    So you do agree that there is harm done? In your original comment you hand waved the “harm” by saying “Are they mislead at times? Possibly, but usually not into anything that would be harmful.”. So which is it? You are confusing me. You stated that nothing harmful is done, but then you go on to share your own hurt by the harm that was done to you. I’m confused.

    I figure that is why God tells us to “Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?”

    I don’t know what that verse means. It’s jibberish to me. I’m afraid that I don’t speak archaic English. Sorry I just don’t see any connection.

    God knows that men will fail you and me, but that these things are meant to draw us close to the only one who can truly be trusted; the One who will never leave us nor forsake us. Thank the Lord for grace and glory which is found during our times of trial, and perfected after we have suffered a while. 23 years after being birthed into the family of God. I am not ashamed to claim Christ and His church. His churches happen to be Independent of all ecclesiastical organizations, Fundamental in actions, and Baptistic in doctrine.

    So just to be clear, you are saying that “His Church” comprises the IFB only? Sorry if I read this wrong, but it sure sounds like you are saying that “[Gods] churches happen to be Independent…Fundamental…Baptist…” Those are your words. What about other Baptists? What about those who aren’t IFB? Are they not part of “His Church”? How do you reconcile that with the teachings that “His Church” is the Body of Believers rather than a building or denomination?

  20. Galatians 1:6-10
    Denominations are different from the gospel.
    Paul founded these churches and now false teachers came in. They believed Jesus Christ was the Messiah, but added unnecessary heavy yoking and burdens onto these believers. They encouraged keeping the Law of the Old Testament while at the same time claiming freedom while following Jesus Christ. These claim Jesus + “water baptism” or “circumcision” or etc etc saves one.
    Works of the Law nullify the Grace of God.
    http://www.masteringthebible.com/studies/galatians-16-10

    1Corinthians 1:10-13
    Denominations reveal division.

    God allows the divisions in order to reveal who is of us and who is not.
    Matthew 7:13,14
    1John 2:18,19
    1Corinthians 11:19
    for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

  21. @Katie
    My friend, To address you last post I must proclaim that you probably do not see IFB churches advertising as part of “the” IFB. This is for two reasons: 1st because there is no such thing as “the” IFB as an official denomination. That is why they declare first & foremost that they are Independent. 2nd because local church is such an issue among many of this stripe that they would be scared to identify as part of an organization beyond the individual church.

    As to the concept that the church hurt me, I said individuals hurt me within the church. My original comment was concerning misleading in lifestyle. “Are they mislead at times? Possibly, but usually not into anything that would be harmful. It is not wrong to honor God with your money, modesty, music, & movies. The desire is that IFBers and all Christians would do so, but not based upon demanding law but of a deep dedicated love.” Now if you think that money, modesty, music, and movie standards are harmful, even if extreme, then we disagree. Attitudes of individuals who by pride want to make you hold their standards or punish you, and attitudes of those individuals who mock people for such standards are both unchristian and unacceptable in many IFB churches.

    As to you misrepresenting my final comments, I believe you know better. I believe that what is considered Baptistic doctrine is Bible doctrine. I believe that you ought to live the fundamentals of what you believe. I believe that all churches should be autonomous which means independent or self governing.

    I do not apologize for quoting God’s word. He said that it is spiritually discerned. I teach my 9 & 11 year old children to use a dictionary for hard words. I did not find any hard words in that verse, and only one uncommon one. (“Ye” means you.) Therefore either you are declaring to being unspiritual (which I do not believe the case to be), you really have never learned to use a dictionary (another thing I do not think is so), or you just don’t like the Bible that I use and want to attack me for taking English literature in high school (I learned those words from Shakespeare).

    I will take time to address other parts of your note later, but would actually like to know what part of being Independent, Fundamental, or Baptist you do not like. Is it the standards that some churches hold, or is the ungracious attitude some people have? If it is the standards, tell me what is wrong with them in particular? I may agree with you to some extent.

  22. @Katie
    Your last correspondence was accusing me of believing that all “God’s” churches were part of some group called the IFB, when all I said was that churches by definition should be I.F. &B.

    “[Gods] churches happen to be Independent…Fundamental…Baptist…” Those are your words. What about other Baptists? What about those who aren’t IFB? Are they not part of “His Church”? How do you reconcile that with the teachings that “His Church” is the Body of Believers rather than a building or denomination?”

    If you were to study, you would find that churches that affiliate with the SBC claim to be autonomous, which means there is no ecclesiastical organization that rules over the church. (That is what “Independent” stands for.) They claim to teach basic Bible beliefs. (That is what “Fundamental” stands for.) Since the name of the voluntary association is the Southern Baptist Convention it is obvious that they claim to be Baptistic. I retrieved this information from the SBC website.

    I never claimed anywhere that the “church” was a builiding, nor a denomination. I am a Bible believer. Remember, I am the one who made this about individuals in the church, and not the assembly (church) as a whole.

    As to the cult issue, I did not complain about the dictionary definition. I embraced it!! Bible believing Christians are cultish by definintion. See, the truth is I’m not scared to be called a member of a cult if the cult is right.

  23. My friend, To address you last post I must proclaim that you probably do not see IFB churches advertising as part of “the” IFB. This is for two reasons: 1st because there is no such thing as “the” IFB as an official denomination. That is why they declare first & foremost that they are Independent. 2nd because local church is such an issue among many of this stripe that they would be scared to identify as part of an organization beyond the individual church.

    Since when does a denomination need to be “official” to be called a denomination? IFB churches are IFB because they subscribe to all that the IFB represents. IFBers are IFBers because the associate with all that the IFB represents. They are a denomination whether you play semantics or not.

    As to the concept that the church hurt me, I said individuals hurt me within the church. My original comment was concerning misleading in lifestyle. “Are they mislead at times? Possibly, but usually not into anything that would be harmful. It is not wrong to honor God with your money, modesty, music, & movies. The desire is that IFBers and all Christians would do so, but not based upon demanding law but of a deep dedicated love.” Now if you think that money, modesty, music, and movie standards are harmful, even if extreme, then we disagree. Attitudes of individuals who by pride want to make you hold their standards or punish you, and attitudes of those individuals who mock people for such standards are both unchristian and unacceptable in many IFB churches.

    So are you saying that misleading people isn’t really hurting them? I’m so lost with this. You keep going back and forth, changing what you are saying.

    Its people that make up the IFB right? And those people are following the teachings of the IFB right? So isn’t saying that the IFB hurts people and people in the IFB hurting people essentially the same thing? This feels like another semantics game to me. If people are being taught by the IFB and then go on to hurt people with those teachings and beliefs then isn’t it BOTH people as well as the IFB that’s hurting people?

    I simply don’t know what you are trying to communicate here.

    As to you misrepresenting my final comments, I believe you know better. I believe that what is considered Baptistic doctrine is Bible doctrine. I believe that you ought to live the fundamentals of what you believe. I believe that all churches should be autonomous which means independent or self governing.

    How exactly did I misrepresent your final comments? If I misunderstood then feel free to correct me. That’s what discussions are supposed to be about aren’t they?

    The simple fact is that there is no such thing as an “autonomous” church. It’s a misnomer. How does one become “autonomous” from the Body of Believers?

    IFB churches may be “independent” by name, but they are united by doctrinal position, traditions, standards of living, etc. To deny that the IFB is a denomination is like denying that a maple leaf is part of a maple tree simply because it is “autonomous” and independent from other leaves. It’s a silly argument and has no philosophical or logical leg to stand on.

    I do not apologize for quoting God’s word. He said that it is spiritually discerned. I teach my 9 & 11 year old children to use a dictionary for hard words. I did not find any hard words in that verse, and only one uncommon one. (“Ye” means you.) Therefore either you are declaring to being unspiritual (which I do not believe the case to be), you really have never learned to use a dictionary (another thing I do not think is so), or you just don’t like the Bible that I use and want to attack me for taking English literature in high school (I learned those words from Shakespeare).

    Well, I guess I’m just not as smart as you then. Why use a dictionary when you can use a different version of the Bible that explains the same thing that you would get with the use of a dictionary? With your logic, then why aren’t we still speaking in and reading text in Shakespearian English in all areas since we could just use a dictionary to define the archaic words and out dated cultural idioms? Why only the KJV Bible?

    By the way, I didn’t ask you to apologize for quoting the Bible I just asked you to explain that verse since I didn’t understand it or the way you were using it in the context of your message. Still waiting.

    Also, dictionaries only define words, they don’t define cultural slang an out dated idioms. That’s why it’s important to have a good, reliable, and UNDERSTANDABLE translation.

    I will take time to address other parts of your note later, but would actually like to know what part of being Independent, Fundamental, or Baptist you do not like. Is it the standards that some churches hold, or is the ungracious attitude some people have? If it is the standards, tell me what is wrong with them in particular? I may agree with you to some extent.

    It’s all of the above. For one, the “standards” aren’t Biblical. They are extra-Biblical laws and rules that serve to distract form the meat of the Word and the NT teachings on grace. Second, it’s the pious, self righteous attitudes that those “standards” cause in people. Following man made rules and laws is not Scriptural. See Colossians 2:16-23

    Your last correspondence was accusing me of believing that all “God’s” churches were part of some group called the IFB, when all I said was that churches by definition should be I.F. &B.

    No, I didn’t accuse you of anything. I made some inferences based on your words, but really I was just repeating back your own words hoping for an explanation. As far as I know the IFB is the only denomination that lays claim to being Independent Fundamental and Baptist. There was only one thing to infer from your comment, that God’s church only consists of the IFB, since that’s essentially what you said.

    If you were to study, you would find that churches that affiliate with the SBC claim to be autonomous, which means there is no ecclesiastical organization that rules over the church. (That is what “Independent” stands for.) They claim to teach basic Bible beliefs. (That is what “Fundamental” stands for.) Since the name of the voluntary association is the Southern Baptist Convention it is obvious that they claim to be Baptistic. I retrieved this information from the SBC website.

    I’ve been a part of multiple SBC churches over the last 15 or so years in several southern states and I’ve never known any of them to lay claim to autonomy, independence, and fundamentalism the way you describe it.

    Even if they did, a “claim” to something doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true. I can claim to be president of the United States, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. A church can’t be “autonomous” and at the same time be part of a convention of churches. It’s nothing more than a semantics game, pure deception.

    In the same vein, the IFB is a brand or type of church with similar teachings, doctrines, traditions, standards of living, etc. and as such fall within a category of churches – what we now collectively call the IFB. Independent is a misnomer. Each individual IFB may be self governing, but they are far from “Independent” in the truest sense of the word. Again I refer you to the “Independent Deception” article on this site.

    I never claimed anywhere that the “church” was a builiding, nor a denomination. I am a Bible believer. Remember, I am the one who made this about individuals in the church, and not the assembly (church) as a whole.

    Again it was inferred based on the context of your message and your comment that God’s church only consists of the IFB, since that’s essentially what you said – see above for more details.

    I don’t understand why you keep reminding me that you are “the one who made this about individuals in the church, and not the assembly (church) as a whole.” What you fail to recognize, and effectively counter argue, is my opposition to the idea that we can blame shift the problems in the IFB to just “some people” who happen to be bad apples among the IFB. What I’m telling you is that it’s much larger than you seem to think and I’m not sure why you can’t see that, especially after reading this site and the thousands of testimonies of hurt people.

  24. Dear Friend,
    Some truths we hold to be self evident, and this is one of them. You have been hurt, are hurting, and are tomented by your hurts. It also seems obvious that you were hurt by Independent Fundamental Baptists. My concern is that you get healing, and that only come by forgiveness.
    I, when I read your response to my first correspondence, tried to help you see that it is not some doctrine or denominational standards that caused your hurt, but a person or group of people. You refuse to believe such. This saddens me.
    Instead of reading my responses to you, you went looking for inconsistencies. There are none if you read contextually.
    You desire to do what the writer of the orginal article tried to warn against at the same time as embracing. That is putting all IFB churches in the same category. We are not all the same; kinda like Baskin Robbins Ice Cream 31 flavors.
    Some IFB churches have very dogmatic leadership while others have a more tempered approach. Some emphasize soul winning, others seperation, others service, others Scripture and some even emphasize the Sovereign Saviour. You may wonder how I know so much about IFB churches. I’ve preached in hundreds of them and visited many more. What I am trying to say is that I certainly believe you were hurt in an IFB church, but that it wasn’t because you dressed modestly, gave money (tithe & offering), were limited in your music or movies, or because you served in some ministries. You were not hurt by using the King James Bible or by Baptistic doctrines.
    You were hurt possibly because individuals within a congregation were hypocrites! Look at Matthew 23:23 and Micah 6:8. No matter how badly you are hurt if the people do justly on your behalf or show mercy on your behalf the healing process is helped.
    The other reason you may feel hurt is because you are self-centered, not surrendered to Christ, and don’t like that God doesn’t like your sin of pride. Pride is the attitude that says “That man is not going to tell me that my lifestyle is wrong. I know as much as him. Who does he think he is? If he can’t prove it by the Bible, he can’t tell me what to do!” That is the kind of person who is just a rebel and doesn’t believe the law of gravity until they go over the edge. That is a person who is consumed in self love and needs to be saved.
    If I am wrong tell which doctrine or standards hurt you.
    If you would like to hear some Christ-centered, conservative, compassionate preaching you can go to www. candlestickbaptist.org.

  25. Richard,
    Are you saying that pastors have the right to set standards apart from Scripture?

  26. Bob,
    As to your question concerning the rights of pastors to set standards apart from the Scriptures? I do not think most intentionally do so.
    If you were to ask me what long hair is when pertaining to a man, I might hold a different view than you. Modesty, music, movies, standards for those who hold positions, etc.; each of these can be debated by those who desire to have their way instead of the high way of humility.
    God deals with our attitude as part of the flock concerning these areas when he tells us to “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, and must give account, that they might do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” Again the Holy Ghost speaks, “And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; And to esteem them very highly in love for their works sake. And be at peace among yourselves.”
    As I have tried to state previously, there is nothing that I can find wrong with having “standards,” even extreme ones. The problem is when your attitude about a standard is placed equal to the exact Scriptures. God looks on the attitude (heart), more than the actions; but at the same time, attitudes produce our actions. I do not endorse some of the brethren’s philosophies concerning many issues, but I am also not quick to judge another man’s servant. (This is the job of Him who judges righteously).
    Pastors are not perfect, and some are even unqualified because of arrogance, but for the most part they are maligned for trying to do what is their responsibility to do as a shepherd: protect the flock from bad influences (wolves & poisonous foods), provide the flock with needed nutrition, prepare the flock to recognize dangers & flee to the Chief Shepherd. God will reward the good & reveal the hirelings.
    The pastor/church relationship is described two ways in 1 Thessalonians 2. 1) As a nurse and a patient & 2) as a father & a child. That is a pastors heart. So I say, if his rules are made to protect the flock from utter danger: follow and forbear even if you can not find a chapter and verse, knowing that if you never touch the tree you shall never eat thereof.

    A pastor, priest, or potentate of any sort has NO RIGHT to make rules or standards contrary to the Word of God!!!

    (1Thessalonians 2:1-12) “For yourselves, brethren, know our entrance in unto you, that it was not in vain: But even after that we had suffered before, and were shamefully entreated, as ye know, at Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God with much contention. For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile: But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts. For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloak of covetousness; God is witness: Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children: So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us. For ye remember, brethren, our labor and travail: for laboring night and day, because we would not be chargable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God. Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblamably we behaved ourselves among you that believe: As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children, That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.”

  27. Richard,
    Let me give you a very clear example of the kind of extra biblical teaching I am speaking of. The pastor of an IFB church I attended in PA said, ” the KJ-only teaching was a fundamental of the Christian faith”. I spoke with him privately thinking that perhaps he mis-spoke. When I questioned what he had said, he insisted that I submit to him and not question his teaching. I asked him to explain his teaching from Scripture but, he only insisted that I submit to his authority. I told him that Scripture is my authority and he has no right to teach anything that cannot be proven by Scripture.

  28. @Richard

    Dear Friend,
    Some truths we hold to be self evident, and this is one of them. You have been hurt, are hurting, and are tomented by your hurts. It also seems obvious that you were hurt by Independent Fundamental Baptists.

    I’m not sure what you mean by this. Experience can only be self evident truth unless corroborated by others with similar experiences (which is seen on this site). That’s part of life but maybe I’m misunderstanding your meaning here. Care to explain further?

    I think you may be confused about what self evident truth means. I’ve referred to the proof given in this site. You may want to review the philosophical underpinnings of self-evident truths.

    You are making assumptions here that you have no business making. I’m not tormented in the least. I just want to effect change and help keep others from experiencing the hurt that I have experienced.

    This also seems like you are trivializing my experiences as if I don’t have a right to feel hurt from the abuse I suffered. Abuse hurts people. That’s a reality that you need to accept and stop pretending that it doesn’t exist.

    My concern is that you get healing, and that only come by forgiveness.

    How do you know that I haven’t had healing and haven’t forgiven my abusers?

    I, when I read your response to my first correspondence, tried to help you see that it is not some doctrine or denominational standards that caused your hurt, but a person or group of people. You refuse to believe such. This saddens me.

    I didn’t refuse anything. We are having a discussion and I’m giving you a counter argument for your consideration. In fact I agreed with you. You may want to re-read my reply to you.

    The difference is that I recognize that since the people who are hurting others are doing the hurting in the name of the IFB then we shouldn’t ignore that the teachings of the IFB play a part in the abuse. When you say that its people that abuse and not the teachings/beliefs of the IFB all you are doing is blame shifting. If there were no abusive teachings in the IFB then the people wouldn’t be able to use those teachings to abuse would they?

    Instead of reading my responses to you, you went looking for inconsistencies. There are none if you read contextually.

    Now you’re grasping at straws. I simply asked you to explain further in order to clarify. Still waiting.

    You desire to do what the writer of the orginal article tried to warn against at the same time as embracing. That is putting all IFB churches in the same category. We are not all the same; kinda like Baskin Robbins Ice Cream 31 flavors.

    But the flavors still come from Baskin Robbins don’t they? If I started a Baskin Robbins franchise in my area I’d have to serve the same 31 flavors or else I would be able to be called Baskin Robbins right? The same is true with the IFB. The IFB is the IFB because of their similar “flavors”. This analogy actually helps support my argument so thanks.

    Some IFB churches have very dogmatic leadership while others have a more tempered approach. Some emphasize soul winning, others seperation, others service, others Scripture and some even emphasize the Sovereign Saviour.

    So what? The differences in emphasis means nothing. To stick with the Baskin Robbins analogy, if one Baskin Robbins had vanilla as their flavor of the day while another had strawberry that doesn’t mean that they aren’t Baskin Robbins anymore. A different emphasis or leadership style does nothing to change the fact that it’s still the IFB.

    You may wonder how I know so much about IFB churches. I’ve preached in hundreds of them and visited many more.

    Not really. But since you mention it, this makes me wonder if you are defending the IFB simply because you are so invested in its teachings and blinded by its indoctrination rather than objectively looking at the evidence and making an open minded decision.

    What I am trying to say is that I certainly believe you were hurt in an IFB church, but that it wasn’t because you dressed modestly, gave money (tithe & offering), were limited in your music or movies, or because you served in some ministries. You were not hurt by using the King James Bible or by Baptistic doctrines. You were hurt possibly because individuals within a congregation were hypocrites!

    I know what you are trying to say and I’m telling you that it’s wishful thinking. Again I agree that it’s people who do the hurting, but those people are using IFB teachings and beliefs to do it. There is no distinction between the IFB and the people of the IFB. They are the same thing.

    No don’t try and minimize what happens in IFB churches to hypocrisy. Indoctrination and hypocrisy are two different things.

    Look at Matthew 23:23 and Micah 6:8. No matter how badly you are hurt if the people do justly on your behalf or show mercy on your behalf the healing process is helped.

    In Matthew 23:23 I read Jesus rebuking the Pharisees for focusing on the letter of the law to the exclusion of what’s really important. Micah 6:8 is an admonishment to treat others with mercy, do what is right and to be humble. I don’t see how these verses apply to healing from spiritual abuse. Would you care to clarify?

    The other reason you may feel hurt is because you are self-centered, not surrendered to Christ, and don’t like that God doesn’t like your sin of pride. Pride is the attitude that says “That man is not going to tell me that my lifestyle is wrong. I know as much as him. Who does he think he is? If he can’t prove it by the Bible, he can’t tell me what to do!” That is the kind of person who is just a rebel and doesn’t believe the law of gravity until they go over the edge. That is a person who is consumed in self love and needs to be saved.

    Stop pretending to know me and the pain I have because you don’t. All you have are assumptions and IFB indoctrination to go on. You don’t know me.

    And that’s not what pride is. I call “That man is not going to tell me that my lifestyle is wrong. I know as much as him. Who does he think he is? If he can’t prove it by the Bible, he can’t tell me what to do!” discernment. I would rather have the guidance of the holy spirit over the rules and traditions of man any day.

    I didn’t know that getting rid of pride is a prerequisite to salvation. Can you please share where that’s found in the bible?

    If I am wrong tell which doctrine or standards hurt you.

    All of them were used in hurtful ways.

    If you would like to hear some Christ-centered, conservative, compassionate preaching you can go to http://www.candlestickbaptist.org.

    No thanks. Not interested. From what I’ve read from you on this site, I do not believe that I will find Christ centered preaching on your site.

  29. @bob

    Dear Bob,
    First of all, I want to commend you for handling the issue properly by going to your pastor privately, and not publicly attacking him as a heretic or worse.
    Secondly, I do not agree with the attitude that seems to come across from your preacher, and though I would like to make excuse, I cannot if it happened with the attitude I perceive. This being said, I do pray you forgive him for a harsh spirit, and then listen to what he is trying to say.
    The problem I have with the whole situation is that I tend to lean toward his side of the argument. God says, (Psa 138:2) “I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.”Another verse is 1Thessalonians 2:13 which states, “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” Both these verses tend to magnify the Scriptures and receiving them, even above the name of Christ. This is because it is the Word that is written and preached that leads us to the Word who is our life.
    Now the predicament, God never tells us which translation is correct. The Word of God is the most important thing as a fundamental to our faith in Christ since “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” but who knows which version is correct. (By the way, they all say different things contextually, or they would only be revisions. Copy right laws forbid claiming credit for someone elses work even if you updated the language.) Your pastor has probably studied the KJV issue, (I do not know this to be true.), as have I and has come to the conclusion that it is the correct English translation. You can either receive it as the Word of God in truth, or reject it. I plead with you to really seek out this matter with a pure heart.
    Please consider the copy right issues. All other versions have men receiving royalties for the writing, if my studies are correct. No one can claim royalties for the Authorized Version of 1611 or its revisions do to the original copy right which claims no person has the right to royalties for God’s words.
    Therefore I conclude that, your pastor did not make up his own standard, but by faith trusts God and His ability to have the Scriptures preserved correctly, even in this generation.
    My question to you would be, “If the Bible as translated and revised in our King James Bible is not correct, which translation is correct?” Now, if you say, like the scoffers, that we have no sure translation, then we have no hope of being certain that our salvation is secure. Our salvation rests in that Christ is who the Scriptures claim Him to be.

  30. Richard,
    The issue here is whether or not the kj-only teaching is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. It is not a question of whether you like the kjv or not. The kj-only teaching is either supported by Scripture or it is not.
    I am actually surprised that you seem to be okay with adding a new teaching to the Christian faith. Why should adding doctrines of men be tolerated by anyone?
    By the way, if you are going to argue that the kjv is fundamental to the faith, you have to show exactly when this happened.
    I hold no malice against my former pastor. I actually did hear what he had to say very clearly. The problem is that he couldn’t support his teaching with Scripture.

  31. @Katie
    Dear Young lady,
    If there is one thing you need to realize, I do not trivialize much, and especially your situation.
    I guess “obvious” would have been a better choice than “self evident.” You are consumed with bitterness based upon unforgiveness. I am not debating that point, but declaring it to be so, as will anyone else who reads or listens to your railing against your abusers.
    Do you have a right to be bitter? You say that I do not believe you do, but the opposite is true. I believe even more than you have a right to be bitter, my precious Lord Jesus, who never sinned, and never had an evil thought had a “right” to be bitter. He realized His responsibility to glorify His Father, and be the channel of grace was more important than coming down from His cross, and leaving us to face His righteous wrath. You do have a “right,” and you are using your “right” as often as you can.
    You say I don’t know you, “Stop pretending to know me and the pain I have because you don’t. All you have are assumptions and IFB indoctrination to go on. You don’t know me.”, but I do. I, as well as many of these others, have been you. The truth is, all bitter people are the same only different. We justify our lack of graciousness toward our offenders on them, which actually means we have not control of ourselves.
    As to the issue of “Pride,” the problem is that you must not realize what God says about it. That is probably because your IFB church did not teach the essential doctrines of salvation such as “Repentance.” I call that group of Baptists “Phonies,” not “Fundamentalists.”
    What is Pride? Self exaltation. What does God require for salvation? Deny self. (Matthew 16:24-26) “Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”
    God hates pride.(Prov 8:13) He declares that Leviathan (that old dragon) is a king over all the children of pride.(Job 41) Pride goes before destuction.(Prov 16)
    Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.(Prov 16:5) For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:(Isaiah 2:12) For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.(Malachi 4:1)
    God hates pride and will judge it. Pride is the sin that keeps men from giving up self for salvation. It is the sin of Satan.
    After saying all that, let me say Pride is found as a root source of sin, whether you are saved or lost. You and I have an old wicked sin nature that is prone toward pride.
    Some say that there are two kinds of pride. Even if you believe that, you cannot Scripturally back your view. Pride is the antithesis of gratefulness/thankfulness. If I take credit for it, than I am not glorifying God for it. If you want credit for your salvation, you certainly do not want Christ. He did it all. I just confessed my guilt & inability and let Him do the work. Praisaluia!!
    Please tell me what these people did? I am not trying to sound insensitive to your plight. I, in my 24 years as a christian, have seen some of the vilest things justified in the name of Christ & His church, but have also seen people get out of sorts over things that I cannot comprehend.
    Not listening to our website because you think evil of me, though you have never told me even one thing that I have said that is not gracious, (even though seasoned with salt), is just another evidence of your being ate up with bitterness.

  32. @bob
    Bob,
    My question is, “Which version of the Scriptures is the word of God?” The one that is God’s word is the Fundamental Foundation of our Faith. I through faith and by much study trust the KJV to be the word of God, therefore it is the only English Bible that I trust.

    As to whether the word of God is the fundamental foundation of the faith, it happened when God wrote it originally. My belief in divine preservation of the Scriptures is completely Scriptural.

    I do not see what your issue with the KJV is. I do know that through comparative study no two versions are the same. If the KJV is the word of God in truth, then it has been since it’s translation. The big issue is, “Is the KJV the word of God?”

    There is no reason to argue whether it is the only correct English translation, if you do not believe it is a correct English translation.

    God said that He is the one who magnified His word above all His name. What version was He talking about? Probably the old Hebrew text. I believe that verse applies to the whole Old & New Testament as originally written, and as providentially preserved. You may not believe that, but the eternal God did not specify that this only applied to Scriptures which are not around anymore. Divine Revelation, Divine Illumination, Divine Preservation, and Divine Illumination are all Bible doctrines, so I do not know where you have a problem with your former pastor’s point.(I have already agreed concerning his bad way of handling the issue.)
    The word of God is fundamentally foundational to our faith.

  33. Richard,
    I will answer your question about which version of the Scriptures is the Word of God. In one sense none of them are. Not one translation today is a perfect representation of the original text. Our translations are also limited because there can be no literal equivalence between English and the original languages. I believe what Christians have held to for 2,000 years, that the Scriptures were inspired by God and are without error in the original manuscripts.
    In another sense, every translation that transmits the original text of the Bible is the Word of God. I think you know that in Jesus time on earth there was more than one translation of the Old Testament. If the Jews were to stick to one translation, Jesus had a good opportunity to settle the issue. I am sure that you know many of the quotes in the new testament come from a Greek translation of the Old Testament. Thus we have two translations of the Old Testament and the Holy Spirit calls both of them the Word of God.
    So Richard, if you want to have one authoritative English Bible translation, you are out of luck.
    Now, if you are able, tell me when the KJV became fundamental to the Christian faith.

  34. @bob
    Bob,
    Being that I believe you are a reasonable person, I think I must not know what the King James Bible only controversy is. I assume you agree with me that God said He has magnified His word above all His name, and that the Bible is fundamental and foundational to true faith in Christ. Therefore, I have not understood the controversy. The King James Bible declares it to be foundational and fundamental to the faith. Other versions claim the same thing. It all depends on if you believe this to be true, and which version you accept.
    I believe the King James Bible, therefore any version that says anything different contextually is wrong. I use the word “contextually” to distinguish between whether I believe a translation can be made updating language that does not change meaning, and other Bibles.

  35. Bob,
    I don’t need luck, I have the Word of truth. You are the one without any sure foundation for your faith unless you hold the originals.

    What I have is God’s word that He would preserve it to all generations. There is nothing left to discuss. To discuss truth with someone who is not confident in the Bible he uses is foolish, and my dear friend I am not.

    Psalm 12:6&7 God promises the purity & preservation of His word unto all generations. Psalm 138:2 tells us that the King James Bible, which is the Word of God, is magnified above all His name. I believe Him more than a man who has no basis for what he believes, especially when God says His word is the foundation for faith. You are the one who says that no Bible today has authority. I take you at your word that you believe such to be so.

    My faith is based wholly upon the Word of God telling me that there was a man named Jesus, that He is the Son of the Highest, that He loved me enough to die for my sin, that He rose again, etc.
    1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
    1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
    1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;
    1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures:
    Paul said “according to the Scriptures.” I wonder did he hold the original scrolls that Moses, Isaiah, and the other old testament writers penned. I trow not. He had copies most likely, but he had total confidence in the what he held. I, like Paul, have total confidience in what I hold. He did not just believe some writings that were not in his possession (the originals), but in the ones he carried with him. You say you cannot have total confidence in the Bible you have.

  36. @Richard

    Dear Young lady
    If there is one thing you need to realize, I do not trivialize much, and especially your situation.
    I guess “obvious” would have been a better choice than “self evident.” You are consumed with bitterness based upon unforgiveness. I am not debating that point, but declaring it to be so, as will anyone else who reads or listens to your railing against your abusers.

    Can you please show me where I was “railing against [my] abusers”? I don’t recall doing that.

    Again, you don’t know me or my situation so how do you know that I am “consumed with bitterness based upon unforgiveness”? Just from a few messages we’ve exchanged? If so you must be a mind reader or clairvoyant or something because I haven’t given much indication about anything that could be mistaken for bitterness. Bitterness is the IFB’s go to argument when they have nothing substantial to contribute so congrats for fitting in the mold.

    Also, I’m not a “young lady”. I’m 73 years old. I’ve been around the block a few times so some respect would be appreciated. If you would stop focusing on making assumptions about me you might be able to see more clearly what I’m communicating.

    Do you have a right to be bitter? You say that I do not believe you do, but the opposite is true.

    I don’t recall saying that.

    I believe even more than you have a right to be bitter, my precious Lord Jesus, who never sinned, and never had an evil thought had a “right” to be bitter. He realized His responsibility to glorify His Father, and be the channel of grace was more important than coming down from His cross, and leaving us to face His righteous wrath.

    Jesus was perfect, I’m not.

    You do have a “right,” and you are using your “right” as often as you can.
    You say I don’t know you, “Stop pretending to know me and the pain I have because you don’t. All you have are assumptions and IFB indoctrination to go on. You don’t know me.”, but I do.

    No, you don’t!!!

    I, as well as many of these others, have been you. The truth is, all bitter people are the same only different. We justify our lack of graciousness toward our offenders on them, which actually means we have not control of ourselves.

    How can all bitter people be the same only different? That doesn’t even make sense.

    How do you know I don’t have “graciousness toward [my] offenders”? Again, what makes you think I’m bitter?

    As to the issue of “Pride,” the problem is that you must not realize what God says about it. That is probably because your IFB church did not teach the essential doctrines of salvation such as “Repentance.” I call that group of Baptists “Phonies,” not “Fundamentalists.”

    What is Pride? Self exaltation. What does God require for salvation? Deny self. (Matthew 16:24-26) “Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”

    God hates pride.(Prov 8:13) He declares that Leviathan (that old dragon) is a king over all the children of pride.(Job 41) Pride goes before destuction.(Prov 16)

    Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.(Prov 16:5) For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:(Isaiah 2:12) For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.(Malachi 4:1)
    God hates pride and will judge it. Pride is the sin that keeps men from giving up self for salvation. It is the sin of Satan.

    After saying all that, let me say Pride is found as a root source of sin, whether you are saved or lost. You and I have an old wicked sin nature that is prone toward pride.

    I don’t disagree with you on these issues. What I disagree with is you judging me and making assumptions about me.

    Some say that there are two kinds of pride. Even if you believe that, you cannot Scripturally back your view.

    There ARE two kinds of pride – boastful pride and a sense of accomplishment pride. The Bible speaks out against the former not the latter. You’ve backed this up with scripture yourself so I will refer you to your own scriptural analysis.

    Pride is the antithesis of gratefulness/thankfulness. If I take credit for it, than I am not glorifying God for it. If you want credit for your salvation, you certainly do not want Christ. He did it all. I just confessed my guilt & inability and let Him do the work. Praisaluia!!

    No, pride is the antithesis of humility. You are getting your terminology mixed up and I think it’s causing you to error in your interpretation of scripture.

    Please tell me what these people did? I am not trying to sound insensitive to your plight. I, in my 24 years as a christian, have seen some of the vilest things justified in the name of Christ & His church, but have also seen people get out of sorts over things that I cannot comprehend.

    I can list all the abusive things done to me in the name of Christ by the IFB, but it would do no good because you what you lack is empathy and sympathy not knowledge. It would do you well to listen for once rather than preach.

    Not listening to our website because you think evil of me, though you have never told me even one thing that I have said that is not gracious, (even though seasoned with salt), is just another evidence of your being ate up with bitterness.

    I don’t think evil of you, I never said that. I believe you are gracious, I never said you weren’t. I’m not listening to your site because I’m not interested and I don’t think that I will hear anything that is Christ centered (I think I already said that).

    By the way, I don’t hear any grace in your messages. I hear gentleness, but that’s not grace. All I hear is you trying to convince me and others that your particular way of doing religion is the correct way.

    Much more than grace is needed. You also need empathy, compassion, sympathy, listening skills, biblical knowledge (not IFB knowledge, BIBLICAL knowledge), wisdom, etc. If all you have is grace then I’m afraid that you are seriously lacking.

    I think it’s interesting that you are willing to season YOUR grace with salt when you preach at others, but when someone tries to correct you with grace seasoned with salt you get defensive.

  37. Oh Richard,
    If you are able, please tell me when the KJ-only doctrine began to be part of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Remember, we are humbly seeking for God’s truth.

  38. Richard :
    What does God require for salvation? Deny self. (Matthew 16:24-26)

    PS – I don’t know how I missed this in my reply to you. Matthew 16:24-26 is NOT a salvation passage. What you are describing is a works based salvation. God does NOT require anything for salvation except faith in Christ’s atoning work on the cross. Ephesians 2:8-9 “8. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9. not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

    Denying self and giving up an attitude of pride is not a per-requisite for salvation.

  39. @bob
    Bob,
    As I have admitted, I am not familiar with this so-called doctrine if it is not that the word of God is inerrant. Please explain this doctrine.

  40. @Katie
    Dear friend Katie,

    I do apologize for calling you a young lady. I certainly did not desire to offend you, or belittle you.

    I will be out for a few days, so answering your discussion will be delayed.

    I must say you err though. Life is life, soul is soul. When the soul is lost this is concerning eternity. God gives life eternal. Further study on pre-IFB, and modern teaching would teach us that God was dealing with becoming & being His disciple. This process is started when you are willing to deny self, take up your cross, & follow him at salvation. Notice the clarity in the King James Bible as it refers to our “will” and His “shall.”

    We will talk later. Should I address you as “old lady”? I do know how to be light hearted. Again, I apologize for taking liberties that were not given.

  41. Bob,
    Just one question. Is the Bible correct if it leaves out Acts 8:37? The verse is “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” I not dealing with the KJ only issue, just dealing with is this verse part of the word of God in your opinion.

  42. Richard,
    Either the KJV is fundamental to the Christian faith or it is not. If you claim it is, as it seems you are, then just explain to me when we got a new doctrine that all Christians everywhere are to accept.
    The KJ-only doctrine teaches that the KJV is fundamental to the Christian faith.

  43. Richsrd,
    I am not 100 percent sure about this verse. There is good reason to question wether the verse is original, or inserted later. Either way, the verse itself is a true statement, so it doesn’t present any real problem. That is my take on it anyway.

  44. Richsrd – Do you believe that the Romans hung a “dead” Jesus on the cross of Calvary as the KJV says at Acts 5:30?

    Most new translations fix this obvious mistake.

  45. @greg
    Greg,
    My friend, the use of a comma would have made that verse say what you claim. “Slew” and “hanged on a tree” are both discribing the same thing. I am a student of English grammar, even if don’t always use it correctly. No comma, no problem.

  46. Richard :
    Just one question. Is the Bible correct if it leaves out Acts 8:37? The verse is “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” I not dealing with the KJ only issue, just dealing with is this verse part of the word of God in your opinion.

    I’m really enjoying the discussions here, but I wanted to chime in on this one since I’ve probably done more research on this topic than most people.

    Most scholars (except KJV Onlyists) generally agree that Acts 8:37 was actually added to the KJV. This verse is describing the conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch. Most scholars agree that it was most likely added by a translator who wanted to explain why the Ethiopian Eunuch was baptized. The evidence that it was added is that it did not appear in any manuscripts prior to about 500-600 A.D. when it was finally found in a manuscript known as Codex Laudianus. Even the NASB, which almost everyone acknowledges (again except KJV Onlyists) that it’s more accurate than even the KJV, has a foot note under this verse stating “early manuscripts do not contain this verse”.

    I’ve talked about the Myth that KJV Onlyists claim, that new translations leave out verses. In actuality the KJV has verses that have been added. You can read more about the KJV Myths at http://www.baptistdeception.com/kjv-only-deception/. This is an absolutely fascinating subject to study and I would encourage you to drop the belief that the KJV is the perfect, preserved Word of God just for a moment, just long enough to look objectively at the evidence. You may be surprised. I know I certainly was.

  47. @bob
    Bob,
    I see your point. If you do not have the originals, you do not know what God actually placed within His holy book. Therefore, if I claim that the originals say that Jesus claims not to be the Messiah in one of the lost books, you have no argument. Somewhere along the line you have to believe what you hold is correct, at least to some point.

    I believe the KJV to be completely correct. Therefore, I can confidently rest in the fact that Jesus is the Messiah no matter what anyone else would claim.

    The Bible is the fundamental foundation for our faith if we claim to be Bible believers. If we claim to be Christians, and don’t believe the Bible to be true, we have no hope.

    I personally believe that you believe the Bible to be correct concerning Christ, but that you are not sure which one is most correct. That is why I challenge you to continue your studies, and do not just take some man’s word on it.

    As to Acts 8:37, this truth is fundamental to the faith. Also, if Acts 8:37 is not in the originals, I want to know what the answer to the question of verse 36 is. Do you believe the evangelist to be rude and not answer a sincere question. Remember he is not IFB, or at least most of those who are on this website would not claim him to be. I think he was. Laugh a little, it is good medicine to have a merry heart according to the KJV

  48. @Katie
    Dear Katie,
    I have been enjoying your correspondence with Richard and have observed a couple of things.
    First, I have known Richard for many years and do not think it he is being defensive. He just desires to help and encourage people in their walk with the Lord and to make them think about what they believe.
    Second, as for doctrines and standards, Richard said, “If I am wrong tell me which doctrine or standards hurt you. ” Your reply was, “All of them were used in hurful ways.” Therefore, from your own point you agree with Richard, it is not the doctrines and standards, but the people and their abusiveness.
    And by the way, all the elderly ladies at our church love Richard.

  49. @Melissa

    Hi Melissa.

    1. You do not think Richard is being defensive because you are not on the offensive against him.

    2. It doesn’t seem to me that he has a desire to help and encourage people. All I’ve seen is a desire to tell people that his way of doing religion is the correct way. To help and encourage people one must first become a good listener. “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” John C. Maxwell

    3. Yes, I believe I stated that I agree with Richard on the idea that it was people and their abusiveness. But you must have missed why I also believe it to be the doctrines and standards/beliefs of the IFB. I would encourage you to re-read my replies to Richard. I stated it a few times.

    4. So because “all the elderly ladies at [your] church love Richard” I’m supposed to love him too or think of him as a helper and encourager? Is that your point? If all the elderly ladies jumped off a bridge should I follow them in that endeavor as well? I would place a bet that all the elderly ladies at your church are just as blind to the truth as Richard is and probably because of Richard’s teaching/preaching.

  50. @Katie
    Dear Katie,
    I got home sooner than I thought I would.
    Just to let you know, you keep saying I do not know you. Point well taken, but I do have a perception about you. Just like you perceive me to be gentle, I perceive you to be holding on to some bitterness. Perceptions, right or wrong, are still perceptions.
    As to “bitterness” being some IFB thing that they use on people who disagree with them, I don’t know. I happened to learn about it in a counseling book written by a man who is not IFB.
    Pride-I like your two views. They prove why God hates all of it. If I recall right, one has to do with a sense of self accomplishment and the other seemed to be a worse thing. If the Apostle Paul was right, in ourself (flesh) is no good thing. This means that any thing good that is accomplished is only by grace. This would make our proper response “delight” or “joy”, not “pride.” I did not do it, Christ in me did.
    Concerning this area of salvation, I certainly was surprised to find out how different our views are.
    You say your faith is in a work, while mine is in a person. (Big difference).
    The Bible says, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” And again, “As many as received him.” I don’t recall God saying, “Believe on the work.”
    My point is simple. I am a Bible fundamentalist. I believe it literally, word for word. I believe Jesus taught, as the essence of salvation, if we desire (will) to come after Him, we are to deny self, admit guilt, and follow Him. Did Jesus believe in works salvation when He told men to leave their lifestyles and livings behind, and follow Him?
    This modern doctrine of salvation grieves the Holy Ghost, who teaches, not by works of righteousness to earn salvation, but works of grace as an evident salvation. It is His work in us that is our salvation, not His work for us. He illuminates (shows us who we are, who He is, Shows us our sinfulness and his graciousness). This brings conviction and our choice to respond. If the response be refusal or rejection, too bad; but if the response be repentance (a wilful desire to have Him instead of our selfish ways), He grants us faith to trust Him to deliver us from sin and self sufficiency. (The result of sin is eternal death in hell and the lake of fire. Our salvation is from sin, therefore we don’t face the judicial punishment.) Faith entails believeing Him for all He is, all He did, and all He wants to do. We, to the best of our knowledge, by His grace, give (submit, surrender, yield, etc.) ourselves to Him. He regenerates us, enabling us to do what we desired, by His personally moving in to empower us.
    I like how Isaiah says it by the Holy Spirit in 12:2&3, “Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation. Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.”
    I do know some socalled IFB, some SBC, and other alphabet folks who do not agree with the Bible and say basically, “Believe on the Saviour Jesus Christ and be saved.” and later you can believe in His Lordship. That is why they spend so much time trying to make the people submit, to change actions, or else as a church compromise.
    This whole thing of salvation must be balanced by Scripture. Is Jesus our Master, King, Lord at the moment of salvation.
    I guess that is like marriage. Is the man the bride’s husband at the moment of marriage? Is a willingness to submit to his authority implied and expressed at the ceremony?
    Basically, the same idea is at the moment of salvation. That is why God uses the title “Lord” instead of “Savior.” That is why the focus is the person, not only the work.
    If there is one damnable doctrine in some Baptist churches, it is the idea of a divided Christ: Jesus, which has to do with His being our Saviour, without Lord, which has to do with His kingship/rulership.
    Just like when my wife and I married, she got all of me: the good, the bad, and the ugly; when a person gets saved they receive the whole Christ: the Lord and Saviour.
    If a person does not want the whole deal, they don’t get saved, no matter what they say.
    Oh! One last thing. You said that things cannot be the same if they are different (see your bitterness comments) but you say all IFB churches are the same when we all are different to some extent.

  51. This true account may bring to light my view on the IFB movement.
    I have two pastor friends who happen to have the same name. One is in a northern state while the other is in the south.
    When I first met and preached for the northern pastor, he asked me about the other. I told him a few things, and then heard his response. (a response I will probably never forget). He said, “Brother, I hope he never falls.” I wondered why there was such a concern about this particular pastor falling, so I asked. The pastor said, if he falls, and the word gets out I’ll be ruined in my reputation. You see, they both have the same name. They both pastor. They both claim the title IFB. If one falls both can be affected.
    Truth is if one so-called IFB church gets a bad reputation, it affects all who claim the name. If one Baptist church gives place to the devil, and causes trouble, all Baptists are affected. Actually, every time any church or Christian is caught in a scandal all are scrutinized.
    We can be 600 miles apart, never met, not look the same, and have totally different personalities; but if he falls I can have trouble because we have the same name.

  52. Richard,
    We may not have the original autographs of the Bible, but that doesn’t mean we don’t know what they said. We have an abundance of quality manuscript evidence to the original text. So you are dead wrong to say we don’t know what God said if we don’t have the originals. If you make a false claim based on the originals, Everyone who knows their Bible will detect your error immediately, because we know what the originals said.
    You have to base your beliefs on Scripture, not what you believe to be true. Just because you believe the KJV to be correct, doesn’t make it so. Even there, how can the KJV be the Word of God and contain errors?
    The Bible is fundamental to the Christian faith , the KJV is not. In order for the KJV to be fundamental, It would have to be clearly stated in Scripture. You can’t have a fundamental doctrine for one group of people that doesn’t apply to everyone else. The KJV is either God’s final written revelation for all people within the church age, or it is just a translation that has certain merit based on how well it transmits the originals.
    I will try to keep an open mind, but you really need to do better than ” I believe the KJV to be completely correct.” Are you saying it is error free? Are you making a claim for inspiration? What does the KJV have that no other translation has? How did God reveal to you that the KJV is the right one? On what basis are we to reject all other translations and hold to the KJV?

  53. @bob
    Bob,
    I interpret that you are now saying that the KJV isn’t a Bible. “The Bible is fundamental to the Christian faith , the KJV is not. In order for the KJV to be fundamental, It would have to be clearly stated in Scripture.” I believe I quoted the verses, you will not apply them.

    I read Steve’s interjection. He seems to believe the NASB to be the most correct translation, and if so I disagree but do not fault him.

    To deny the KJV ranking as the word of God goes beyond anything I have said about any of the “modern translations.” I have not attacked them, I have only stated that I believe mine to be correct. (Divine Preservation, Not Divine Inspiration).

    If most recent studies are correct, the KJV is still from the Majority Text and possibly some of the oldest. That being said, should majority rule? I do not declare that to be so. Should oldest rule? I do not declare that. I, like you, if you have lived any length of time, have seen majorities be wrong and have seen older folks be wrong. Somewhere along the line you must stand that the Bible you hold in your hand is authoritative for all doctrine and practice.
    I claim the KJV because it works. I am old enough to remember when the KJV was accepted as the final authority in most denominations across America. Has America become better with the newer? I trow not.

    I’ll stick with what works, and not fight against the flow. Just standing on the KJV as my final authority for life brought me to the saving knowledge of Christ, a sweet fellowship in Christ, & (as I am confident because I believe the Book) an eternal residence with Christ. If God can do all that and still sound like a poet, GLORY!!!

    You, my friend, claim only the originals are the word of God, and you have never seen them. You believe some men, who had agendas (some honorable), but mainly the money making agenda, to advertise their Bible not to be defiled. Most of them claim to be the Bible, which due to what most people think, is a false claim. (Most people think “Bible” means “God’s book,” not just any book). Just putting that on the cover, if they are not the originals, according to your logic, is deceptive and damnable. (I do not believe this, I am following your logic).

    To fit your criteria, honest advertising and a title would say, “The uninspired/incomplete/incorrect Book of God that we translated from uninspired/incomplete/incorrect books and scrolls.” The publishers and editors can always say, “We did our best, but God left us nothing to work with.”

    When you show me who advertises that way, upfront on the title or in sub-title, I guess it would be a good book to read. If I want fiction, I’ll buy the new John Grisham novel (oops! My wife is doing that today).

    You are a blessing to correspond with. I still do not undedrstand the KJ-only doctrine, or should I say I know men who claim it and some are nutty extemists, while others have just found what works and are not exchanging for the unproven, especially since they read men who tell them that only the originals are right.

    Find the Bible you believe to be most correct, learn it, love it, & live it. God can even draw a straight line with a crooked stick.

  54. Richard, there comes a point in some discussion where I feel like I’m simply beating my head against a wall. There’s nothing more that can be said since you refuse to open your mind to reason. You are obviously not interested in discussing, but in arguing. You have your mind made up and you are not going to let anyone tell you different. Therefore, I wash my hands of you and I wish you the best of luck. I can’t justify wasting anymore time trying to share logic and reason with you as it simply falls on deaf ears.

    One final departing thought though. If you are depending on the KJV and your “denial of self”, as you’ve stated, for your salvation, then I’m afraid that you aren’t really saved. Scripture is clear no matter what version you read that salvation is by grace through faith, not of WORKS, lest anyone should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 says nothing about using the KJV or attending an IFB for salvation. If you are relying on your efforts then you will be a lot hotter for eternity then you think you will be.

    I will be praying for your soul and I sincerely hope that we will meet in heaven one day.

  55. Richard – I see you place a very high value on the KJV translation. Which revision of the KJV translation do you use? Most of the folks that I know generally use the 1769 revision, of course I’m sure you realize that the KJV has been revised several times. What is hard for me to understand is why, if the KJV is the only true word of God, did it need to be changed or revised at all from the 1611, which by the way contained the apocrypha, and also contained “The Translators to the Readers” in which the translators themselves completely dismissed any notion that theirs was the “only” perfect word of God. If the KJV translators were alive today, they would be the first to denounce any idea that theirs was the “only” reliable translation. They said that “a variety of translations is necessary for the finding out of the sense of the scripture” I wish to goodness that the “Translators to the Readers” still came with the KJV translation, it would quiet much foolishness.

    One last question, where was God’s word in English prior to 1611? God wouldn’t have left English-speaking people w/out His word would he?

  56. richard :

    I read Steve’s interjection. He seems to believe the NASB to be the most correct translation, and if so I disagree but do not fault him.

    Richard,

    I never said or even hinted that I believe the NASB to be the most correct translation. You are taking liberties with my words just like you are with Bob’s and Katie’s.

    There are, in fact, at least 5 translations that offer a more accurate word-for-word translation than the KJV. These 5 are the Interlinear, NASB, AMP, ESV and RSV. This isn’t opinion it’s fact. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

    Although I believe that your intentions are pure throughout your discussions here, I must give you this warning. This site ultimately speaks out against spiritual abuse and oppressive beliefs. As such, I’ll not allow the way that you “discuss” these issues to go on forever. Please properly engage in discussions by carefully reading and thoughtfully responding. If you continue to simply spout IFB dogma the discussions will end and you will not be allowed to return. While it’s nice that you provide a very loud example of what this site speaks out against, it starts to become unproductive and abusive when you refuse to engage in proper debate. Understand?

  57. Richard,
    You say that you believe in Divine preservation of Scripture. I do too. The issue I have is with people who insist that we must use the KJV. God never said He would preserve His Word in the KJV. This is the main issue I am trying to get at. To say that the KJV is fundamental to the faith is wrong because it would have to have been fundamental to the faith since the Scriptures were completed.
    I believe that the KJV is a good translation and is one I use myself, although mostly as a study tool. I am just trying to point out that those who require others to use the KJV in order to be fundamental are going beyond what the Bible clearly teaches.
    Maybe a reverse comparison would help to clarify this. Lets assume your pastor said that the NASB was fundamental to the Christian faith. If you would be shocked by this, I would be too. Every Christian should stand up immediatly and denounce what he said as false. Why? Because the NASB is merely a translation of the Scripture and is not necessary for one to use in order to be a fundamentally sound Christian. This is my point about the KJV. It is not necessary for one to use the KJV to be fundamental. Therefore to judge Christians as not being fundamental based on whether or not they use the KJV is a false standard of orthodoxy.

  58. @bob
    Bob.
    Two things to say to your comments.
    #1) I would most likely graciously leave the church, and never discuss the issue with anyone until I realize they have a need to know. I probably would speak to the pastor a couple of times privately prior to leaving, in order that he know what the issue is. I would not go looking for friends in the church to try to bring with me, such as some of my brethren have done when they leave churhes. I believe in Individual soul liberty, I am a Baptist. I believe that if my friends hold the view of the pastor, they will stay; if not, God is big enough to direct them. I would not discuss the issue with outsiders unless they were planning to join the church. At that time I would ask them if they knew this stand, and could sit under a pastor who holds it. You see, I do not always recommend the most “fundamental” churches to people. I recommend they go somewhere that they can get some help from the Lord.

    2) You can read through all my writings, from the first, and you will see that I have continuously said that The KJV issue was not what I desired to discuss. The reason being is that I know where I stand and am confident. My job is to preach the word, not to defend it. I really do not have time to debate the issue, I’ve read the books, heard the arguments, and still believe that I’ll stick by the Partner I started the dance with.

    Being that you will probably not hear from me again, I want you to know that I have enjoyed our dialogue. I do not stay where I am not welcome.

  59. Melissa,
    I have a God given responsibility to earnestly contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. The situation with my former pastor is about four years old. I handled it in a Biblical manner and with a clear conscience.
    I don’t have a choice about weather or not to confront false teachers. I have a responsibility to take a stand for what the Bible says, especially within my local church. When someone adds a fundamental doctrine to the Christian faith, they are in serious error, and it has to be exposed.

  60. @bob
    Bob,
    Some how our church secretary, got credit for my recent post. She would not be writing you, being she does not correspond with men. She has corresponded with our friend Katie, and she overlooks all of my correspondence with women. This is not some IFB doctrine, just years of wisdom from being around people who misrepresent the truth, and others who abuse trust.
    I did not make a long explanation to why I would not cause a scene, but I believe you and I would agree that the testmony of Christ and His Church is more important than the NASB/KJV controversy. (I use those two only because they were the ones brought into the discussion previously). I am confident that if your pastor did not receive your 1st exhortation (not rebuke) well, after a 2nd he is going to most likely get on the defensive. The next step would be to take some men of like mind with you and go to the pastor about the situation, but I have seen this turn into an argument over perception of truth. The next thing is bring it before the church. The pastor, and his cronies are not going to let that happen. He will malign you. (I saw similar happen in a non-IFB church, so being IFB, and knowing the pride of people, I certainly see it happening there.) Therefore you are now the cause of all problems in the church, you a causing contention, and you are banished.
    ON the other hand, if you never get into a fight with the pastor, and leave the church on good terms, quietly, people will ask what happened. The pastor will stand behind the pulpit and talk about how you are a heretick, and so on but many will question why he is so angry when you did not do anything to start a stink.
    ON one side the church splits, babes get hurt, you get either bitter or puffed up (this is natural), the pastor gets bitter or puffed up, and the testimony of the church is hurt in the community unless you live in a major metroplex. (Then it takes two or three splits to destroy a church). Nobody is really happy, because no one did right.
    Two things to realize: #1) It is not my church. I did not purchase it, and I certainly do not love it as much as Christ. #2) For the Bible issue to have gotten to the extent that it did, most people already were leaning toward that direction, even if they were wrong.
    Though I desire to see churches started by men who are sent out, there is no problem with starting a church in a community where there are no good ones. This is not done by prostelizing, but evangelizing. There will be those who come from other churches, who are discontented, in debt, & in distress; but the church planter is looking for fresh fruit, not tainted by false doctrine. (Don’t turn the church hoppers away, but make sure that they are willing to deal with the former offender & offense).
    Now, if there’s already another church in the area where you can fellowship, join up & go on with God. You will never have to question, Did I leave with a right attitude and good spirit, because no one will know except for you, the pastor, and those who really care.
    Jesus did not try to fix Judaism, He started something new. He took the abuse, His disciples took the abuse, and throughout history His churches have taken the abuse. I lay down my life for the sheep, I don’t try to butcher the under-shepherd, and I certainly am very sensitive about the flock.
    As I said in my recent correspondence, I perceive that I am not welcome here, and so am signing out. If you respond, I may but I may not. There are some who have issues with my disagreement with their views and have threatened to shut me down. (That sounds like your IFB). I have never intentionally maligned, or mischaracterized anyone on this site. I do apologize for implying that Steve seems to believe the NASB to be the most correct translation. (I guess there are at least two of us who don’t, him & me. He said “most people.” Therefore, I assumed he was in the majority.)
    All that being said, I do believe in matters of severe character flaws, and criminal conduct, pastors must be brought to discipline. Whether I believe a particular Bible to be the word of God or not, as you say, is not fundamental to the faith, therefore it’s just arguing opinions, and not worth destroying the testimony of Christ’s church. He has protected it for nearly 2000 years, I do not think He needs me now. I think I’ll just go on preaching, and loving the Lord Jesus.

  61. Richard :
    As I said in my recent correspondence, I perceive that I am not welcome here, and so am signing out. If you respond, I may but I may not. There are some who have issues with my disagreement with their views and have threatened to shut me down. (That sounds like your IFB). I have never intentionally maligned, or mischaracterized anyone on this site. I do apologize for implying that Steve seems to believe the NASB to be the most correct translation. (I guess there are at least two of us who don’t, him & me. He said “most people.” Therefore, I assumed he was in the majority.)

    Richard, you are more than welcome here. Just because we don’t agree doesn’t mean we don’t want you here. Many have come to discuss these issues only to leave with tails between legs. I’ve yet to figure out why. I can only surmise that it’s because our view points fly in the face of what you’ve established in your mind to be truth. As a result, if you feel you aren’t welcome then that’s your issue not ours. But there must be boundaries. This is a site ultimately about healing form spiritual abuse so I’ll not allow it to be perpetuated. Just discuss and you’ll be fine.

    Also, just to set the record straight, I said most people acknowledge that the NASB is more accurate than the KJV. I never said the NSAB is the most correct translation. There is a HUGE difference and I am astounded that even after I pointed it out to you, you again misquoted me. You seem stuck, like a robot, unable to see anything other than what you are programmed to see. Its sad really and I feel bad for you.

    But please stay and continue to discuss. I’ve come to respect Bob, Katie, Greg and other “regulars” here who have great insight into these issues. All I ask is that you give us a chance. Really listen to what we are saying and consider it. Counter our arguments if you must, but do it in a way that shows respect and thoughtful consideration. Remember, our eyes have already been open to the dangers of the IFB. You have come here to disagree with us. As such, you bear the burden of proof.

    Looking forward to hearing more from you.

  62. @Steve
    Steve,
    You being astounded amazes me. I admitted an assumption, apologized for it, and you are not satisfied. Either you did not read my post, or you read it with a preconceived idea that I don’t mean what I say. “I do apologize for implying that Steve seems to believe the NASB to be the most correct translation. (I guess there are at least two of us who don’t, him & me. He said “most people.” Therefore, I assumed he was in the majority.). Please read such words as “apologize” “Implying” “assumed”: Those words were a confession of my failure to understand what you meant in your statement, and an opportunity for you to forgive me for an error. You took it for another chance to attack me unjustly. (You must have learned that from the IFB, it is not Bible).

    The reason I feel unwanted is because of your “warning.” You language was very harsh, for someone who has a place to help those who are spiritually abused.

    David said to Joab and his brothers, You are to hard for me. (That is not an exact quote). He was not tucking his tail, he was bowing out graciously. David could have had them killed, but he had already learned that violence is not the answer. You, like the sons of Zeruiah, are too hard spirited for me. I am a lover of grace.

    As to respecting people on the site, I started out with great admiration for you. Bob seems to be well balanced. Katie by my perception needs to face her hurts, and get beyond them. (It is people that hurt people). This is a long process, but by grace she’ll make it the rest of the way. As for greg, he needs to go back to school and learn English, then he needs to learn how to be respectful, instead of hateful.(I would not be surprised to find out that he has a real anger problem, and needs meds). Steve, I cannot figure you out at all. You seem well thought, but then you start accusing and threatening. (That blew my mind). I may offend you with my beliefs, but I have not been offensive in my approach to anyone, (unless you want to call my assessment of greg such).

    I , personally, am sick and tired of people bad mouthing people in order to get over their hurt by those people. My recommendation is that you cast your care upon the Lord,He cares for you. Embrace Him, He is a healer. He is the Sun of Righteousness who rises with healing. The answer is not get it off you chest by finding others who are hurt to help you. The answer is Looking away unto Jesus.

    If you cannot respond in grace, please do not respond at all. I don’t feel well and am not in the mood for a bunch of hate filled junk by people who don’t like me. Oh, by the way there is good chance that I am about to be the pastor of a SBC church. I am not as IFB as you think.

    1. Sorry for this folks. I usually don’t get involved in discussions like this because I like the discussions to evolve on their own without my interventions. Sometimes when I get involved, people tend to drop out of the discussion for whatever reason so I like to see the discussions take their own path without my interactions, but I could really sense Richard escalating and getting abusive so I wanted to step in and take the brunt of his anger. It looks like my intuition was correct so I’m glad I did. I would much rather have people like Richard take their anger out on me than others. There is no reasoning with Richard and because of his abusive language, anger and obvious unwillingness to consider others he has been banned. I don’t make decisions like this easily and if Richard wants to apologize he is welcome to send me a private email and I will post it, but I will not risk further escalation from such dogmatic beliefs. Anyone who is interested and willing to comment and further discuss the issues without Richard is welcome. Sorry.

  63. I actually went back and read my few posts. For the life of me I can’t understand Richard’s comment about me needing to learn English. I know I’m not the greatest writer/speaker, however most folks understand what I am attempting to convey, and isn’t that what you’re after when writing/speaking.

    Then the anger comment, where does that come from? I think that maybe our friend is not accustomed to folks challenging him, the way we all did, and he got flummoxed (I believe that’s a word, Richard will let us know if not) but hey, he didn’t tell you guys that ya’ll (southern for you all, Richard) that ya’ll (there it is again) had anger issues, hey come to think of it he does do quite abit of analyzing, doesn’t he? Oh well.

    Richard – Most of us here love the Lord Jesus with all our hearts, we escaped the IFB with our faith intact!! The bible, which I love more than you’ll ever know, tells me that “whom the Lord sets free is free indeed” I have been set free friend, no more legalism, no more following some arbitrary standards set by some man. I am free!!! I praise the Lord for His mercy and goodness!! He is worthy to be praised!!!

    Richard I do hope that you can find some peace and joy, life’s too short. Hey I know you love your KJV, please, please listen to it!!!!

  64. I haven’t visited this site for a few months now, but I am glad I did today! I am afraid Richard is more about defending his religion & the KJV than the Lord. The Lord would not want His name misrepresented the way the IFB does. I know what I am talking about. I was in the IFB movement for over 30 years! We left the cult 6 yrs ago and I have become much stronger in the Lord!

    I have found a few sites for those of us who are free from the IFB movement, but this one stands out for the simple reason, from what I have read so far, most on here have left the IFB with their faith in Christ intact and desire to grow in Him. We no longer want traditions of men, but hunger and thirst after Him and Him alone. I am sad to say, Richard doesn’t get that. He seems to think we should just hand over our faith to a “man of god” and blindly follow him. That is the core of the IFB movement. The pastor is pope like and what he says goes. So sad =( I was deceived like that for way too many years and, by the grace of God, I will never. go. back.!

  65. Good words Sandra!!

  66. It saddens me to read all the comments that bash the IFB movement. So far from my experience I have been taught to Love the Lord with all my heart, soul and mind. To build a relationship with the Lord by reading His Word everyday, which will help me to continuously grow spiritually. My Pastor, who openly admits his faults and tells us all the time he is not perfect because he is a sinner just like everyone else, has been someone who I can relate to. He has lead my family in a direction I never would have thought they could go. When I started attending our church my husband and I were seperated and headed for divorce. He was an alcoholic and had been for about 9 years. He has now been sober for over a year and with the help of our church family, prayers and our Pastor, we are working on putting our family back together. My children love attending church and church functions as well. Not because I make them but because they want to. People have the wrong idea about rules and standards. The things that we are being taught are to keep us from becoming enslaved to things of the world, the flesh and the devil. You may think that you want to have “freedom” as you put it but think about what has and is happening in the world right now from having such “freedoms”- alcoholism, drug additions, pornography, immorality, greed and the list goes on and on. Rules and standards are set to keep us from the things that can hurt us and hinder our walk with the Lord. How can we expect our young people to listen to us if we are not willing to submit ourselves to a higher authority as well? How can you say that you want to follow Jesus Christ but yet you don’t want to follow the “rules” or commandments He has so clearly given us? You can’t follow only what suits you and throw the rest out because it doesn’t work with your ‘independant thinking’, that’s not how it works-no church, group, government, school, business…etc can survive without rules and standards! God commands us to go out and share His Gospel with the world, He commands us to seperate ourselves and try to live a clean life. He doesn’t expect us to be perfect, He already knows we are not. Isn’t that why He sent His Son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for our sins? If going to a place where they are teaching my children to stay pure until marriage, to honor Dad and Mom as God has commanded, to have consideration for others, for a man to love his wife as Christ loved the church, for a wife to reverance her husband and submit to his authority, to go out and talk to others about Jesus, to care so much about someone else’s salvation even when you don’t know them that you go out of your comfort zone to talk to them about God and lead them to Christ so they can go to heaven as well as all the other commandments He gives us is wrong well then I guess I just might be in trouble. It is a risk I am willing to take because I believe what the Bible says not because of what a man has said to me but because God knows what is best for us even if we don’t understand why or He would not have given us such clear instructions. He speaks to me through His Word! No matter what no one can take that away from me. I’m sorry you’ve had such an experiance, which is nothing compared to what Jesus went through to atone for our sins, that you feel you have to say these things! Even so I don’t think that talking about anyone’s religion is right as a matter of fact it is boardering on gossip and if I am not mistaken my friend that is also addressed in the Bible as a “don’t”!

  67. Cynthia – I’m delighted to hear that God is working so powerfully in your family’s life, He is able! All Praise to God!!

    Not sure if you are addressing some of my comments, but I will say this as relating to following rules and man’s standards. When I quote God’s Word about Him setting me free, I don’t mean at all that I now have “freedom” to go out and wallow with demons in pits of sin and enjoy myself, not at all, certainly God “expects” His children to follow His Word and live and act accordingly, but I am set free from some simple MOG (man of God) with His basement Bible Diploma (sarcasm, I know) telling me that I can’t listen to contemporary christian music, that my wife can’t wear pants, telling me how long my hair should be, misleading folks about what the bible teaches about tithing, consuming alcoholic drinks etc, that’s what I’m set free from, and of course, mainly I’m set free from the bondage of sin!

    Cynthia, I think I probably love God’s Word as much as you or any IFB that has ever posted on this site. It was God’s Word that led me out of the IFB. I fully understand that you also love the Lord and are probably doing your best to follow Him, and I appreciate your dedication to that cause. What I want to point out is that your way is not the only “right” way, there are thousands of christians, striving to serve God that are not in the IFB!! That may shock you, I love the Lord as much as you and am doing my dead level best to serve Him! Steve has ministered to hundreds if not thousands with this site he has provided for folks who have been hurt by many small-minded IFB’s, I would concede that not all are hurtful or small-minded, but I would guess the majority are. God is bigger than what you have been taught to believe. God cares much more about what is on the inside than what is on the outside, just read the gospels, it seems that many IFB’s are more concerned with what’s on the outside.

    Let’s finish with some of the precious word. 1 Timothy 4 1-4

    “The Spirit clarly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. they forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the Word of God and prayer.”

  68. Cynthia :
    It saddens me to read all the comments that bash the IFB movement.

    It saddens me to know that you are saddened by people “bashing the IFB movement” rather than being saddened by all the testimonies of abuse, neglect, hurt and damage caused by the IFB. How shallow. Anyone who defends the abusers (perpetrators) rather than the abused (victims) is, in my book, either brainwashed or just plain ignorant.

    This is your first sentence and it made me want to vomit. It negates your entire comment and I couldn’t stomach to read more, but unfortunately I did. You have some serious problems with your thinking and I hope that one day you will re-consider what is truly important before it’s too late.

  69. Who was Jesus speaking to? His Apostles and those who would ultimately follow Him.
    Who were the persecutors Jesus was speaking of? The Pharisees and “religious”. These were those who later would crucify Him.

    Matthew 5:10-12

    Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
    Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
    Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

  70. @ Cynthia

    I once was were you are at now. I beleived by following rules set in place made me more Christ like. In reality it left me empty, tired and frustrated. Frustrated that I couldn’t keep the endless rules, nor did I want to. Then, 6 years ago, the Lord removed the veil from my eyes and I saw myself for the vial sinner that I am. He showed me that despite being in the IFB for more that 30 years and praying the “sinners prayer”. Despite being baptized by an “approved” Baptist preacher. Despite serving in various ministries & was at church every time the doors were opened I was NOT truly a child of God. It was then I feel on my knees, repented of my sins and cried out to Him to take my life and do as He will. (Before I go on, I just want to say that is my personal testimony and I am NOT suggesting those in the IFB are unsaved. I was not.)

    I would like to share what I’ve learned since leaving the IFB 6 years ago….
    The rules you mentioned are all man made rules. Those rules are put in place by man to make him/her live by mans version of what man thinks is required by God to make yourself righteous. In other words, self-righteousness. Jesus had very strong words for those who practiced and enforced self-righteousness. He called them a den of vipers for their righteousness was external NOT internal. Read Matt 23 and you will see for yourself what Jesus has to say about external rules and religion.

    Rom 10:1-3 Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but NOT in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about GOD’S righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.

    Self-righteousness is living by MANS version of what MAN thinks is required by God and then imposing that standard on others, judging others and their own righteousness by whether or not they keep those standards.

    God’s righteousness is internal. God and God alone can transform us into new creatures. That transformation takes place from the inside out. As the Holy Spirit works in our lives He transforms us into His image. That transformation removes ugly, sinful habits from the inside changing our character which shows on the outside. We don’t need a list of do’s and don’ts because our desire has changed from self centered to God centered. We won’t want to engage in sinful activity because we hunger and thirst after God’s righteousness. To hunger and thirst after righteousness is to desire with all our being to live and walk the way GOD says to.

    For a man, whom ever he may be, to set in place external rules is a poor attempt to be the Holy Spirit in ones life. All that is accomplished is making the outside look good while the inside is full of dead mans bones.

    I also realized that the modern day “pastor” in many churches, including the IFB, is pope like. He has put himself in a postition between man and God. That is NOT where any man belongs nor will I ever go back to a church where the pastor attempts to lord over the lives of others. He has no business doing so. He is to lead by example plain and simple. The Holy Spirit is the transforming power in my life not man! Call me rebellous if you will but my life belongs to Christ and I will guard my relationship with Him.

  71. Sandra – I just want to say that your testimony has blessed me this morning!! How wonderful to worship God without man-made filters, to allow Him to work in our lives, free from the legalism of man, this my good friend is true worship!

    Most of our religions, particularly IFB’s have allowed men too much authority and power, it’s really kind of odd because they continously shout and proclaim they follow “only” the bible and yet look at how they lead folks down their little, legalistic paths!! It’s really shameful. God has so much for us than that.

    “There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”

    “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

    I hate to admit it but these two statements describe too many IFB Pastors.

  72. Greg, I am glad what the Lord has done in my life has blessed you. I pray that others will see that legalism is ugly and leads them farther away from God not near Him for we can’t serve two masters.

  73. Because I personally have witnessed and experienced the many abuses described on this thread, I must add that it is very encouraging to read of what the Lord is doing for the many others who have suffered much of the same. I’m quite certain that those whom the Lord has led out can testify that He has blessed us tremendously by allowing us to suffer and be persecuted for His name sake. At the time of this suffering, it seems to be devastating, but after the fact, I can now thank Him because He allowed it as part of growing in “grace and knowledge” of Him. I, in my flesh, am of little faith, but the Faith of the Holy Spirit who resides in me has allowed for me to rest in Him. He alone knows what He is doing in believers lives and why. We have been warned of false teachers. Now we can testify of and warn others who have His Spirit. IF they do have His Spirit, we know He is Faithful to lead His sheep where He will. They will have their spiritual eyes opened as we have. We all are right where He wants us at any given moment of our walk with Him.
    He is Our Gracious Merciful God and is continuing to bless us!
    The flesh cries at suffering, but His Spirit in us is Our Comforter!
    John 15:18

  74. Lol you guys are funny. This site really doesnt describe a IFB church. Just fwi

  75. @John Doe

    “You’re wrong” isn’t a very strong counter argument. And laughing at people??? Is that really how an IFBer should be acting? Shame on you.

    PS – I wonder why you don’t give your real name? If you know the truth, why hide?

  76. Because John Doe is an undercover agent. He and his church are the only true church with all the secret codes and messages, if you join up you will get a special decoder ring, (oh and a one-of-a-kind 1611 KJV, signed by Jack Hyles. oh goody!) and you too can run around poking fun at people w/out any substantial message, just pouring hot legalism on people and watching them squirm, and having all the answers to the questions that no one is asking.

    John Doe – Please examine yourself with the mirror of God’s Word and see if you feel that Jesus would have responded in the way you have here.

  77. @greg
    Lol once again I have to laugh because you guys are just funny. I laugh because no matter what I say…you think Im wrong and your right. Your right about IFB, your right about your interpretation of God’s Word, your right about your version of the Bible whatever and I think youre wrong is a sufficient counter argument. This is because you murmur and complain about specific situations, about specific people, with specific circumstances. The fact is I am an Indepdent Fundamental Baptist. I was going to show you why I say you guys are wrong, but I was wondering why do you think Im wrong or “bad” for being and “IFB?”
    PS Greg You’re a little strange….can we talk like adults in this blog. please. We really should talk about your last comment

  78. John Doe :

    Lol once again I have to laugh because you guys are just funny. I laugh because no matter what I say…you think Im wrong and your right.

    Laughing again… Not sure why you are laughing at people who have been abused and are hurting. It’s not very kind. I’ve met atheists who wouldn’t even laugh at what the people here have been through. That’s not very nice nor is it a reflection of Jesus.

    Your right about IFB, your right about your interpretation of God’s Word, your right about your version of the Bible whatever and I think youre wrong is a sufficient counter argument.

    So now we are right? Do you think we are wrong or right? I’m confused.

    I don’t remember anyone saying “I’m right” so “your wrong” doesn’t fit. It would be nice for you to point to specifics instead of making the fallacy of sweeping generalizations. I would say open minded is a better term than “right”.

    This is because you murmur and complain about specific situations, about specific people, with specific circumstances.

    Exaclty, we give specifics while you give nothing except “your wrong”. Besides, what’s wring with “murmuring and complaining”?

    The fact is I am an Indepdent Fundamental Baptist. I was going to show you why I say you guys are wrong, but I was wondering why do you think Im wrong or “bad” for being and “IFB?”

    This isn’t a personal attack against you. I have no idea if you are right or wrong because you haven’t shared your beliefs. Why are you taking it personally?

    This entire site is dedicated to why we think the IFB is wrong and “bad”. I can’t figure out how you missed that. The difference is we say the IFB is wrong/bad and then tell why we think that, while you say “your wrong” and then don’t tell us why you think that. A counter argument would be appreciated rather than a generic “your wrong”.

    PS Greg You’re a little strange….can we talk like adults in this blog. please. We really should talk about your last comment

    Calling someone “strange” isn’t very nice either. I don’t think your IFB friends would appreciate the way you are talking to us. You are very mean. You make me glad I’m not IFB anymore.

  79. @Charles
    Alright. First off you really do talk to much. haha. =) and you never really answered my question…in fact you avoided it altogether. Lol I think before dissecting my conversation I think you should focus and the question I asked, not avoid it. I want to see why you think Independent Fundamental Baptist like I are “wrong, or mean, or abusive, or whatever other adjective your want to put in here.”

    Okay lets start at the top about the laughing. I was laughing only at those who were not hurt or abused by the “IFB”….cant you tell. Lol haha, but really its funny how guys setup an entire site to talk about how others wronged you. That is funny. This is because Im pretty sure no one in this world is perfect so you really should expect to get hurt everywhere…..even in church! It is sad that people get hurt in church, but it really shouldnt matter because when I get hurt or get down I don’t take my troubles to a website or put it on my facebook. I actually take my matters, concerns, problems, troubles, and etc.. to God. Im pretty sure he can do a lot more than a website could ever for me…right? =)

    About the your right part of my conversation. If you read the entire letter in full you would read. “I laugh because no matter what I say…you think Im wrong and your right. Your right about IFB, your right about your interpretation of God’s Word, your right about your version of the Bible whatever.” I was saying Im pretty sure “You think your right about IFB and about the rest of the things i listed. This is one reason why you should have answered my question. So we could clear this matter up. This method of reading the entire passage also helps out in reading the Bible. Its so you can get the context, not just pick out verses to defend what you think.( Keep in mind i know we could talk a lot about this and we can, but please answer my first question fully, “What Do you Believe is wrong with the IFB?”) Lol and about the openminded comment. =) We can talk later about that.=)

    Next paragraph, lol. If you would have answered my question you would have listed out those specific reasons why IFB are wrong or whatever adjective you want to place here. Also your comment….”Besides, what’s wring with “murmuring and complaining”?”Umm well Phil 2:14 can answer that one for you if you believe the Bible.(I honestly dont know cuz you never really said, but if you do….good.

    Next paragraph again. . . I think if you say my way of thinking is wrong, or whatever negative adjective you want to place here, then Im pretty sure its attack against me. I said I was an “IFB.” If you explain whats wrong with IFB ill tell you why you may potentially be wrong. Also you have a site dedicated to it so it should be easy to accumulate a couple or a lot of reasons why IFB are “wrong,bad, mean, etc.”

    Lol and Greg is a little strange. In only one paragraph he described me as an undercover agent with secret codes and messages with a special decoder ring, also with an authentic 1611 KJV signed by Jack Hyles, someone who i really dont know. Then he said Oh goody! (Honestly if a man says that I gotta question him) Then said i was pouring legalism as if it was hot lava on people and then watch them squirm. And all that was said after I said 15 words, “Lol you guys are funny. This site really doesnt describe a IFB church. Just fwi” Seems kinda strange to me. I think anyone not only a IFB would agree he is a little strange.

    But remember before all this answer the question, “What Do you Believe is wrong with the IFB? Thanks =)
    Ttyl

  80. @John Doe

    Yes I did answer your question. I told you that the site already lists the reasons why the IFB is wrong/bad (see the list in the right hand sidebar). I agree with the site so why waste time repeating whats already on the site. Just read what’s on the site and then if you want to share why you disagree then feel free.

    You’ve done a great job of excusing the abuse. You’ve effectively hand waved the issues and minimized other people’s struggles and perspectives. Not very caring or empathetic of you (pathetic but not empathetic).

    So how to you contrast Philippians 2:14 with Galatians 5:7-12, 1 Timothy 4:1-5 and Titus 1:10-16 where we are admonished to expose false teachers??? You view this site as “murmuring and complaining” where I see it as exposing false and dangerous teachers. Philippians 2:14 by the way is a recommendation not a command, and it’s not a complete thought. The thought continues through verse 15 (and you accused me of pulling scripture out of context and using it to fit my argument – you hypocrite. Maybe you should pull the log out of your own eye before you try and find the speck in my eye).

    You’re taking this site personally, but I can’t help that. That’s your issue not mine. This isn’t a personal attack against you.

    This isn’t my site. As I’ve already stated, this site has already accumulated reasons why the IFB is wrong/bad/mean etc. It’s a waste of time to repeat it. Just read the site and pick something you disagree with and then offer a counter argument.

    About Greg: Greg is using sarcasm. It’s a form of humor. That doesn’t mean that Greg is weird. It just means that your are too closed minded (or brainwashed) to see the obvious.

    Again, if you want to know what I believe is wrong with the IFB, read what’s on the site. I agree with the site so what Steve thinks is wrong I agree with him.

  81. @Charles
    haha you speak of having an open mind I kind of doubt it. You are hopeless. No matter what you say the fact is you are hopeless. And i know you will try to twist this around, but you are.

    Phil 2:14 if you know any greek the word do is not a suggestion its actually in the imperative or command form. So where you got your interpretation that it was a suggestion once again proves you need to improve on studying your Bible.

    Also once again you did not answer my question. If you believe so strongly on what you believe you wouldnt have a hard time listing them out right? Your almost like those people in the occupy wallstreet thing…..Why are you here……because of many reasons…..What are they……..I dont know.=)haha

    And what i said about those hurting people is true whether you believe it or not. God can do much more than you or I or a website could do. I dont think when David was down he talked about it to others…..he took his troubles to the Lord.

    And greg is weird. Its shows he does before he thinks.

    Ill keep praying for you. =)

  82. Hey John – Looks like Charles has answered all of your questions.

    My comments were exactly as Charles explained, sarcasm, that was directed to your comment claiming that we were “funny” that reminds me of a joke “Why don’t cannibals eat clowns? Answer: “Because they taste funny” Of course that has nothing to do with the subect at hand, but that doesn’t matter because this is the way strange people act!!! (that would be more sarcasm)

    I think most of us that visit this site are christians who have been spiritually abused, many of us by the IFB. I am one of those. I have told parts of my story elsewhere on this site.

    I found this site about 2 years ago, and was and am very thankful for it and for Steve, and for God laying this “ministry” on his heart, and yes I consider this “ministry.”

    My experience with the IFB’s is that they seem to have all the answers and if anyone believes differently, they will be ostracized and eventually shown the door, not saying all, but this has been my experience. I know there are many good folks in the IFB, that are attempting to do good work, no doubt. But can you see, how you came rolling in here and calling hurting folks funny, fitting the exact sterotype of the know-it-all fundy IFB!!

    Remember: All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in rightousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16

    You mentioned about discussing my comment. I am willing to discuss anything with you, if you will be respectful.

  83. So if I’m hopeless then why are you arguing with me and trying to change what I believe? The last time I checked only God knows someone’s heart. The IFB tries to play God so I’m not surprised about your judging me.

    RE: Phil 2:14 – The last time I checked “do” is an English word not a Greek word. Paul is speaking in Phil 2:14. Paul can’t command us to do anything. Only God can command. By the way I said RECOMMENDATION not “suggestion”. So what was that about twisting words?

    Also once again I did answer your question. What do you want me to do copy and past the entire site into a comment box? Read the site and you will know what I believe and why I believe it. But if you really want a list then here you go:

    Topics
    01. Overview of the IFB Church
    02. Doctrine of Separation Deception
    03. Spiritual Abuse
    04. Tithing Deception
    05. Spanking Deception
    06. Mental Health Deception
    07. Emails Received
    08. What in the world?!?!
    09. Shared Stories
    10. Discussions
    11. KJV Only Deception
    12. IFB Commonalities
    13. ‘Jesus and the Law’
    14. ‘Sin Breaks Fellowship’ Deception
    15. ‘GoD and DoG’ Video
    16. Intellectualization Deception
    17. Quotable Quotes
    18. Arv Edgeworth Deception
    19. Peace in Decisions Deception
    20. “Bible Believing” Deception
    21. ABC’s 20/20 Exposes IFB Abuse
    22. “Independent” Deception
    23. Harold Camping – Epic Fail!
    24. Bill Zeller Suicide Note
    25. Is the IFB a cult?

    Can you please show me in the Bible where God tells us to only pray about our hurts and not talk to other people about it? I can’t find that anywhere.

    I’m not sure what part of David’s life you are referring to, but I’m assuming that you are talking about II Samuel 11 when he committed adultery and murder? Well if so, David was talking to God because he sinned not because he was abused. There is a big difference in being “down” because you sinned and being “down” because you’ve been abused. I would have thought that you were smart enough to know that given the way you mock others and tout your knowledge of the bible.

    Did you ever think that this site and the information contained herein could be used by God to help others? I guess according to you and the IFB God can’t use people since we can only go to Him directly? In the Bible God used people to fulfill his purpose he didn’t do everything himself.

    Don’t bother praying for me. I want God’s will in my life not the IFB’s will.

  84. @greg
    Sure im willing to talk if you can talk like an adult and not go on about secret agents and what not……Do you want to have an adult conversation?

  85. @Charles
    haha about the word do. Where do you think that english word came from? Which language was the Bible originally written in…..english……i think not. I pretty sure you know very little on Bible study. lol So concerning that last part of that paragraph do you believe the Bible is Man’s Word and not God’s Word? I think you should answer that.

    Lol and about your list. If what you believe is copy and pastable wow…….I really shows you dont know what you believe. Probably if I added “Dogs can go to heaven to that list, you probably just might believe it.” This is bceause its on the list. haha jk but seriously Im pretty sure you dont know what you believe.

    Concerning the prayer thing. Can you show me in the Bible where it says dont go to God and only talk to others about it? David once again is a perfect example when he was being hunted down by soul. Read through the Psalms you see David talking to the Lord aobut his troubles. Asking him to take care of it. (By the way dont assume things, it wastes both of our time. Me reading it and you talking about….and im referring to Your whole david paragraph) lol

    Actually now that ive read your entire paragraph you really do assume a lot. Thats sad, but concering your last paragraph, What if this site does not contain things that help others become closer to God. What if this actually pulls people farther from God. I think you got serious issues beause your last comment. Ill still pray to the same God you believe in that you will become more Biblical not more IFB, not less IFB, but more Biblical. By the way you talk it seems you take to much of your beliefs from this site than from the Bible itself. If thats the case then you are truly hopeless

  86. @greg
    By the way greg the clown joke was a joke. Describing someone as a secret agent and whatever else you said technically isnt really a joke. You were more describing who you thought i was then waiting to give a punchline.

  87. I used to go to a Fundamental Independent Baptist Church, which I call it the place, instead of the church. I quit 5 months ago. The reason is because I, simply, kissed the so-called pastor’s little daughter on her head, which I was showing godly affection. Instead, when he saw me kissing his daughter on her head, he became paranoid and disturbed and he told me not to do it anymore. The phony pastor told me that he knows me for a long time and I cannot believe that he told me this. It makes me feel that he looks at me as if I was a sex offender. I come from a Greek cultural background that kissing children or even anybody, regardless of age, is very normal with me. The so-called pastor is very narrow minded. Besides the phony pastor, the other idiots of the church are very snobby and I do not like the way how they defend the phony pastor and they do not have any wisdom to be broad-minded to understand other peoples’ cultural background. I have never done any harm to children nor to anybody. God is my witness. Now, I do not feel comfortable to go anymore to any Fundamental Independent Baptist churches or churches as I call them the places. I feel that the place that I used to go has a very corrupt spirit, instead of the true spirit from God. Where is God’s affection in the place where I used to go? There isn’t any.

  88. Troll Alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  89. @John Doe

    haha about the word do. Where do you think that english word came from? Which language was the Bible originally written in…..english……i think not. I pretty sure you know very little on Bible study. lol So concerning that last part of that paragraph do you believe the Bible is Man’s Word and not God’s Word? I think you should answer that.

    You said “if you know any greek the word do…”. The word “do” is distinctly an English word. The word “do” in Phil 2:14 isn’t a Greek word and isn’t even of Greek origin. The Greek word for do is “tithénai” and it means “to set, put”. This word “do” in Phil 2:14 is probably from the German “tun“, akin to the Latin “facere” which means “to make”. In other words, Phil 2:14 could be translated “make this happen”. Paul was saying, “make this happen” or “this need to happen”, but he wasn’t saying you must do this. There is a difference. In other words Paul was highly recommending this course of action. He wasn’t telling us that God is commanding us to do this.

    So what was that about knowing very little on Bible study? If you’re going to argue with a Bible scholar, and accuse him of not knowing the Bible, you damn well better know what the hell you’re talking about and be able to back up what you write. Otherwise you prove yourself to be more of a brainwashed idiot than you already are.

    Lol and about your list. If what you believe is copy and pastable wow…….I really shows you dont know what you believe. Probably if I added “Dogs can go to heaven to that list, you probably just might believe it.” This is bceause its on the list. haha jk but seriously Im pretty sure you dont know what you believe.

    So you asked for a list, I provided one and now that’s not good enough because I only copied and pasted? What do you want then? Do you want me to re-write what’s already written in my own words? Will that suffice? Yes, I already told you that what’s on the site is what I believe so yes, it is “copy and pastable” – duh. If Steve ever writes anything that I disagree with then I will exclude that from what I copy and paste.

    I could accuse you of the same thing. You’re essentially “copying and pasting” from the IFB dogma. It may not be in written form, but you are doing nothing more than simply regurgitating IFB teachings. It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure that one out.

    By the way, if you added “Dogs can go to heaven” to the list then I wouldn’t believe it because it came from you. What part of I AGREE WITH STEVE don’t you understand? You probably don’t know what I believe because you refuse to take the time to read the site.

    Concerning the prayer thing. Can you show me in the Bible where it says dont go to God and only talk to others about it? David once again is a perfect example when he was being hunted down by soul. Read through the Psalms you see David talking to the Lord aobut his troubles. Asking him to take care of it. (By the way dont assume things, it wastes both of our time. Me reading it and you talking about….and im referring to Your whole david paragraph) lol

    I never said “don’t go to god and only talk to other about it” so I don’t have to show you where that is because I don’t believe that. Don’t put words in my mouth. By the way, how do you know I don’t go to God about things? Are you trying to be a mind reader or something? If so you’re not very good at it. If not, then you’re simply perpetuating IFB judgmentalism so congrats on that. More evidence of brainwashing.

    I guess you can just ignore David’s friend and confidant Jonathan and their relationship then eh? What about I Samuel 20?

    By the way it was King Saul who was after David. There is no such person in the Bible named “soul”. Perhaps you should learn to spell before you try to educate people on Bible interpretation.

    And what did I make assumptions about? You accused me of making assumptions but you never said what I was assuming.

    Actually now that ive read your entire paragraph you really do assume a lot. Thats sad, but concering your last paragraph, What if this site does not contain things that help others become closer to God. What if this actually pulls people farther from God. I think you got serious issues beause your last comment. Ill still pray to the same God you believe in that you will become more Biblical not more IFB, not less IFB, but more Biblical. By the way you talk it seems you take to much of your beliefs from this site than from the Bible itself. If thats the case then you are truly hopeless

    Again, what exactly am I assuming?

    I could ask you the same question. What if the IFB really does pull people further from God? I think you got serious issues because of your entire diatribe. By the way you talk it seems you take too much of your beliefs from the IFB rather than from the Bible itself. If that’s the case then YOU are truly hopeless. – See, it swings both ways.

    As long as you pray for God’s will in my life and not God’s will as taught by the IFB I’ll thank you for your prayers. I don’t think that you can, though, given the evidence that the IFB is interwoven around everything you believe and talk about.

  90. @Charles
    Ok lets focus at one thing at time because you need to focus. About the greek word….Where did we get our english translation of the Bible? Please answer this and only this.

  91. @John Doe

    I need to focus??? You’re a piece of work you know that? I’m just replying to you. So if you want me to focus then you need to focus.

    I’m afraid that you need to narrow down your question a bit. There are entire books dedicated to answering the question “where did we get our English translation of the Bible”. You should read those books if you want to know.

    But I have a sneaky suspicion that you are not really interested in an answer to the question “where did we get our English translation of the Bible”. What’s really your question? What is your motivation behind such a question?

  92. @Charles
    So you really dont know where we got our english Bible from? You just believe what someone else said in a book? Where do you think we got our Bible from? Did we get it from aliens (by the way some people believe this….weird) or did we translate the original text the Bible was written in into our english language?

  93. @John Doe

    Yes I know where we got our English Bible From.

    No I don’t “JUST believe what someone else said in a book”, but books are the traditionally accepted way of learning. How would you recommend I learn if not from books?

    No I don’t believe we got it from aliens – please don’t patronize me.

    I’m not sure who you are referring to by “we” when you ask “did we translate the original text…”. Care to explain? John Wycliffe was the first to translate the Bible into English and he used the Latin Vulgate as his source. But there’s a lot more to the story. If you want to learn the history of how we got our English Bible then you will need to research it on your own. But good luck with that if you’re against reading books.

    Now I’ve answered your questions, why don’t you answer mine?

  94. @Charles
    So we got our Bible from the Latin Vulgate. Was the Bible written first in Latin? By the way Im against Copy and paste beliefs and believing what one person said, but rememeber focus on the question? lol Focus.

  95. @John Doe

    So we got our Bible from the Latin Vulgate.

    No, that’s not what I said.

    Was the Bible written first in Latin?

    It’s not known for certain, but some of the manuscripts were in Latin so it’s possible that at least part of the original text was in Latin.

    By the way Im against Copy and paste beliefs and believing what one person said,

    Me too.

    but rememeber focus on the question? lol Focus.

    I’ll focus if you focus. Still waiting for you to answer my questions… lol (said sarcastically while rolling my eyes)

  96. @Charles
    So was the Bible ever written in Hebrew, Greek, or Arabic?

  97. @John Doe

    Again, it’s not known, but the consensus is that the original languages for the OT were Hebrew and Aramaic and for the NT Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. No Arabic.

    You better get to your point soon. This is getting old.

    Still waiting for you to answer my questions.

  98. Good just testing you and it pretty is well known that those were the languages the Bible was originally written in. Now that we established that the OT was written in Hebrew and Aramaic and the NT was written in Greek lets head back to Phil 2:14. Was that written originally in Greek or Latin?

  99. @John Doe

    Probably Greek. Stop patronizing me!!! This is your last chance. What’s your point???

  100. @Charles
    Im not Patronzing you. It just takes a little longer because im teaching you something. Well in Phil 2:14, since it was written in the Greek, the sentence was ????? ??????? ????? ????????? ??? ???????????. The Word ??????? is the Greek word for “Do.” If you parsed that word do you would see it it in the imperative form which is a command form. This means when it was written down God intended this word not to be, “Well, I hope you ll listen to me….if not its ok. No. God said DO all things without murmuring and complaining.

  101. Lol the site has a hard time with Koine Greek so for the Greek sentence go to http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B50C002.htm#V14 and the second word in that sentence is the word “Do”

  102. JD – Which of the following verses, from different translations, seems to make more sense to you……………Philippians 4:6

    “Be careful for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication let your requests be made known unto God.”

    “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.”

    Do you think God wants us to “be careful for nothing” or do you think He wants us “not to be anxious?”

  103. @John Doe

    You are being condescending and its offensive to me (the very definition of patronizing) so yes, you are patronizing me.

    You’re teaching me something eh? What qualifies you to teach me or even evaluate that I need teaching?

    Parsing scripture is only ONE part of textual criticism and exegesis. You also have to consider the cultural, situational and textual context. Word for word interpretation is rarely sufficient to capture the meaning of scripture. The Greek word for do is “tithénai” and it means “to set, put”. That doesn’t fit with the context of the passage. The word “do” in Phil 2:14 is probably from the German “tun“, akin to the Latin “facere” which means “to make” (Latin Vulgate “omnia autem facite sine murmurationibus et haesitationibus” – this is on the page you referenced, by the way – how convenient that you would miss it). This fits better with the context.

    In other words, Phil 2:14 could be translated “make this happen”. Paul was saying, “make this happen” or “this need to happen” or “be aware of this”, but he wasn’t saying you must do this. There is a difference. In other words Paul was highly recommending this course of action. He wasn’t telling us that God is commanding us to do this. This is evidence by the context of the entire passage. Paul is teaching his audience about how to have a Christ like attitude. He isn’t giving a set of commands to follow.

    The Weymouth New Testament is a more accurate translation: “Be ever on your guard against a grudging and contentious spirit” (this is also on the page you referenced – there seems to be a theme happening here – Hmmmm). “Be on your guard” is a warning or a recommendation and is vastly different from the command “do this”.

    Imperatives aren’t exclusively used as nouns to give a command. They can also be used as adjectives for requests, recommendations and to accentuate something urgent and/or important. So just because you see an imperative doesn’t automatically mean it’s a command. Given the context, we can easily deduce that Paul wasn’t using this as a noun (as you say), but as an adjective.

    Your argument sounds distinctly IFBish to me. So what was that you said about a copy and paste belief system? It really sounds like you are simply copying and pasting the IFB methods of scriptural interpretation.

  104. @Charles
    lol haha i think you should look at that greek word you have…..You got the wrong one. The greek word for do may be whatever you said, but here the Greek word located in this specific passage is Poieo (you can check the page I referenced) and it means: a do, b perform, c cause to be, d work, e make, f behave toward, g assign to a task, h make profit: . Also Please explain how a Word for word interpretation is rarely sufficient to capture the meaning of scripture. Is it really rarely sufficent. Do you look more into the culture and situation more and rarely at the words of God? Shouldnt they all be equal in order to get the meaning of the passage?

    Also Why do you go to the Latin? Thats just weird haha =)….I mean ive never heard of anybody even athiests ever going to the Latin to prove the Bible. Maybe a Catholic would….Are you Catholic?(I honestly dont know)

    Also Do you believe its Pauls words or Gods Words?

    One last thing what makes Weymouth NT a more accurate translation? lol

  105. @greg
    what do you mean make more sense?

  106. @John Doe

    How old are you 10? What’s with the “lols” and “hahas”???

    Also, I’m still waiting for you to answer my other questions…

    lol haha i think you should look at that greek word you have…..You got the wrong one. The greek word for do may be whatever you said, but here the Greek word located in this specific passage is Poieo (you can check the page I referenced) and it means: a do, b perform, c cause to be, d work, e make, f behave toward, g assign to a task, h make profit:

    Actually they both mean essentially the same thing “to make”.

    Poieo has no less than 20 possible translations depending on the context…:

    1. to make with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.
    2. to be the authors of, the cause
    3. to make ready, to prepare
    4. to produce, bear, shoot forth
    5. to acquire, to provide a thing for one’s self
    6. to make a thing out of something
    7. to (make i.e.) render one anything
    8. to (make i.e.) constitute or appoint one anything, to appoint or ordain one that
    9. to (make i.e.) declare one anything
    10. to put one forth, to lead him out
    11. to make one do something cause one to
    12. to be the authors of a thing (to cause, bring about)
    13. to do
    14. to act rightly, do well
    15. to carry out, to execute
    16. to do a thing unto one
    17. to do to one with designation of time: to pass, spend
    18. to celebrate, keep
    19. to make ready, and so at the same time to institute, i.e., the celebration of the passover
    20. to perform: to a promise

    …which is why it’s important to consider the context so you know which meaning to attribute to the verse. Paul isn’t giving a set of commands. He is encouraging his audience to have a Christ like attitude. You have to consider the context of the passage in order to determine the correct meaning of a particular word.

    So the debate isn’t really which word to was used – poieo or tithénai – but what the meaning is. Even if the words “to do” is correct, it still doesn’t necessarily mean a command. See the above explanation of imperatives.

    We tell people all the time to do things. That doesn’t mean we are commanding them to do it. For example, I just told my son the other day that he wants to get a scholarship to college then he needs to do good in school. It’s a recommendation not a command. I didn’t command him to do good in school I said ‘that if you are to get this, then do that’. This is the flavor of the passage and what Paul is communicating.

    Likewise, Paul is communicating… If you want to have a Christ like attitude then this is what you should do…

    Also Please explain how a Word for word interpretation is rarely sufficient to capture the meaning of scripture. Is it really rarely sufficent. Do you look more into the culture and situation more and rarely at the words of God? Shouldnt they all be equal in order to get the meaning of the passage?

    I think I already explained that. I’m starting to see why you are having problems understanding this.

    Textual criticism looks at all aspects of interpretation equally. Word for word translations don’t work for all situations so it’s rarely sufficient to capture the meaning of scripture – I don’t know how to say it more clearly than that. Maybe an example? If I asked you to translate the phrase “break a leg” into another cultural language, you could certainly translate it word for word, but it would have no meaning (or a very different meaning) in a culture that never heard that idiom before. You’d have to translate the meaning of that phrase such as: “good luck” or “I hope you do well in your endeavor”. This is called dynamic equivalent translation and is often better than literal translation. The Biblical manuscripts are full of language style that is distinct to cultures of the Biblical era so it’s important to consider the context.

    No I don’t “look more into the culture and situation more and rarely at the words of God”.

    Yes, they should be equal. I never said they shouldn’t be. You are the one using exclusive word for word translation not me.

    Also Why do you go to the Latin? Thats just weird haha =)….I mean ive never heard of anybody even athiests ever going to the Latin to prove the Bible. Maybe a Catholic would….Are you Catholic?(I honestly dont know)

    I’m not trying “to prove the Bible”. I’m using proper biblical exegesis to object to your assertion that Philippians 2:14 is a command. This involves considering the context and looking at all the possibilities not just the literal interpretation of the Greek manuscripts.

    I’ve already told you why I consider the Latin Vulgate. It offers a better translation of what the essence of the verse is communicating. It’s a better fit considering the context. Try to follow the discussion please.

    Also Do you believe its Pauls words or Gods Words?

    Both

    One last thing what makes Weymouth NT a more accurate translation? lol

    Because of the context of the passage. I’ve already explained that multiple times. Paul isn’t giving a set of commands. He is encouraging his audience to have a Christ like attitude. The Weymouth translations is more accurate because it better captures the message of the passage. Why do I feel like I keep repeating myself…

    Are you going to answer my questions now?

  107. @Charles
    im pretty sure lols and haha are fine for any age. Lol

    Ok….If i give you a command to Do this you have a choice. You can either do it or not. God commands us to neither to complain nor to murmur, but its up to you. You can choose to listen to his command or not. Chose to obey him or not. I dont think Paul is saying come on you guys dont murmur and complain…..its not good. I think he was a little more stern and bolder than that.

    Concerning the Latin………weird 8/

    Concerning the translation part. You gave a completely different word to explain the word do. So I gotta question your interpretation of the Bible. Its as simple as looking into the texus receptus and getting the correct word and interpreting it. lol

    Concerning the Weymouth NT………..weird 8/

    Please explain your question entirely so i can answer it the best?

  108. I probably shouldn’t butt in, but which Textus Receptus should he look into?

  109. @John Doe

    lols and hahas may be fine for any age but they are quite annoying when you’re trying to have a mature, adult, philosophical discussion about biblical interpretation. It makes it sound like you aren’t really taking it seriously.

    Yes, I agree. The issues is about a choice. You can choose to believe the proof I’ve provided that Phil 2:14 isn’t a command, or you can choose to continue to believe your delusion and IFB brainwashing. It’s up to you. I don’t really care what you believe… I’ll stick with the truth.

    No one looks into the textus receptus anymore (except deluded IFBers). We have older, more accurate manuscripts now. If you are looking into the textus receptus for your interpretation then it’s no wonder that you are misinterpreting the Bible. You should start living in the current century rather than the 17th.

    I asked you multiple questions. I’ve already asked them “entirely”. I don’t know how to ask them more “entirely” then I’ve already asked. They aren’t difficult questions.

    Greg, you’re not butting in. Glad to have your interjections.

  110. @Charles
    If you questions are that important i think you should retype them. If not then i guess they are unimportant.

    and Lol im glad were having a “serious” conversation. It really isnt a serious converstaion because the fact is you think im dumb for being an IFB and you think your not dumb because your not an IFB. If you really broke down our conversation that really what it is. It seems that every point you make……your right. No matter what I say you are always going to end up the right one. haha I guess truth is relative right? Sounds like what your saying.

    Anyways lol in one paragraph you said we look back at the”older” more “accurate” <—– (Funny) manuscripts and then you go on saying I should start living in the current century. So should I look back to those old and "accurate" manuscripts or should i start living in the current century?

    By the way please can you prove why the "older" and I would assume "more accurate" manuscripts are better? Is there facts behind an older manuscript is a better and more accurate manuscript or is this just your opinion. And i will let you copy and paste if you think that will help you out.

    And once again to remind you……If you want your question or questions answered……type it out. Its that simple…….and if you dont then its not worth both our time i guess.

  111. @John Doe

    If you questions are that important i think you should retype them. If not then i guess they are unimportant.

    No, I’m not going to let you shift blame onto me for your refusal to answer my questions. You are being manipulative. My questions are just as important as yours. The only difference is that I showed you the courtesy of answering your questions while you rudely ignore mine. I’m not re-typing them just because you are too lazy to scroll back up and find them. If you want to answer them then go back up, find them and answer them. If not then continue to be rude and ignore my questions, I don’t really give a shit at this point.

    PS – you never answered Greg’s questions either… should he repost his questions so you can continue to ignore him too??? I guess only your questions are important eh???

    and Lol im glad were having a “serious” conversation. It really isnt a serious converstaion because the fact is you think im dumb for being an IFB and you think your not dumb because your not an IFB. If you really broke down our conversation that really what it is. It seems that every point you make……your right. No matter what I say you are always going to end up the right one. haha I guess truth is relative right? Sounds like what your saying.

    If it isn’t a serious conversation then I’m not going to continue. Sorry, but I can’t take the manipulation and ad hominems adn rabbit trails anymore.

    If you think that I think you’re dumb then that’s your problem not mine because I haven’t communicated that. You’re making yourself look dumb by the way you are handling this conversation. Maybe if you actually provided something of substance we could sink our teeth into it and have a good discussion, but all you do is ignore my questions and expect me to cater to yours all the time. A discussion works best when both parties are willing to explore and digest the issues together.

    I’ll be glad to admit I’m wrong, but only when you prove that I’m wrong. If you’d spend half as much time on the actual discussion as you did on attacking me personally then we might be able to have half way decent conversation.

    Anyways lol in one paragraph you said we look back at the”older” more “accurate” <—– (Funny) manuscripts and then you go on saying I should start living in the current century. So should I look back to those old and "accurate" manuscripts or should i start living in the current century?

    Both… those who do textual criticism currently (in this century) have much more reliable information and manuscripts then people who’ve lived in say the 17th century. Join us in the current century so that you can look at the older and more reliable/accurate manuscripts that have been discovered recently rather than remain in the 17th century where all they had was the TR.

    It’s really not that difficult to figure out.

    By the way please can you prove why the “older” and I would assume “more accurate” manuscripts are better? Is there facts behind an older manuscript is a better and more accurate manuscript or is this just your opinion. And i will let you copy and paste if you think that will help you out.

    Uh, more accurate manuscripts are better because they are, hmmm, how should I say it… more accurate. Duh. What part of “more accurate” is confusing to you? See, you make yourself look dumb. I don’t even have to do it.

    And once again to remind you……If you want your question or questions answered……type it out. Its that simple…….and if you dont then its not worth both our time i guess.

    And, once again, I remind YOU… I’ve already typed out my questions. I’m not typing them again just because you’re too lazy to go back up and read them. You should have answered them when I first asked instead of ignore them (just like you are ignoring Greg’s questions).

    So I guess it’s only worth our time if I answer your questions right??? and not worth our time if you answer mine (and Greg’s)???

    So here I am again answering all your questions while you continue to ignore mine and attack me. I’m not answering anymore of your questions until you answer mine. This is beyond annoying now.

  112. Rev. Paul D. Larrimore

    OKKKKKKK, surfing and came across this sight and discussion. I spent most of my early life in Fundamental churches whether they called themselves Baptist or not. Here is the deal, BTW I left them. There IS a number of Organized FELLOWSHIPS but they still act as a denomination. They require dues to keep credentials by ministers (Some) or at least churches to finacially give to be a member. Have offices, literature meetings etc etc. DOESN’T THAT SOUND LIKE A DENOMINATION ?? Eventhouth they claim they are not. All believe essentially the saame thing. ONE THING I FOUND ABOUT FUNDAMENTALIST CHURCHES…..THEY LOVE TO THROW STONES AND ARGUE AND FIGHT.. Do you know why we have so many of them ??? Once they get tired of fighting others they fight then among themsleves then split into more organized local fellowships !!!!!!

    Who are they ??? First there are numerous local fellowships not with a National Body.
    but here is the National Bodies of Fundamentalist Churches. Some do NOT use Baptist name but have churches that do.

    1). Baptist Bible Fellowship, Springfiled Missouri

    2). Independent Fundamental Churches Of America, Illinois

    3). IBF (Of Course)

    4). International Baptist Fellowship

    5). National Associataion of Free Will Baptist’s

    6). General Association of Baptist Churches, Schaumburge, Ill.

    7). General Baptist Association

    8). Coonservative Baptist Association, New England Area

    9). Missionary baptist Association, Arkansas

    10). American Baptist Association, Alabama (I believe). Notr the ABC of America

    11). Independent Baptist Churches of America

    I’ll stop here !!!!

  113. why would anyone call themselves rev? That name belongs to God alone!

  114. @billy osment

    Seriously??? All of the abuse, exploitation, manipulation and misinterpretation of scripture exposed here on this site and you’re worried about someone using the title Rev.??? You’ve got to be kidding me!!! Talk about majoring on the minors.

    So tell us please. Where is that found in the Bible, that the term Rev. belongs to God alone??

  115. He’s probably referring to Psalms 111:9 The KJV reads “He sent redemption: He has commanded His covenant forever: Holy and Reverend is His name.” The NIV says “Holy and Awesome.”

    I hope once again I didn’t butt in, but from my years of “brainwashing” in the IFB, I knew immediately what our friend was getting at, having heard my very own IFB MOG (man of God) pontificate on that very point.

    I don’t know your background, but I use to be right where Billy is, the good news is that if he keeps hanging around here, he could actually learn something. Man God’s grace is sooooo good. I’m so glad that whom Jesus set free is free indeed, I am no longer a slave to simple men who try to keep me in their little legalism boxes.

  116. @Charles
    Lol ok your questions are not important. Lol your funny. “Im not going to type it again” haha…..Then its not important also known as a stupid question right……or was it really important?

  117. @Charles
    This is a stupid conversation……VERY unimportant.

  118. @greg
    What is legalism?

  119. @Charles

    I love how you made fun of me and called me dumb by saying,”Uh, more accurate manuscripts are better because they are, hmmm, how should I say it… more accurate. Duh. What part of “more accurate” is confusing to you? See, you make yourself look dumb. I don’t even have to do it.” lol super funny because in your attempt to make me look dumb you actually make yourself look foolish. I asked “By the way please can you prove why the “older” and I would assume “more accurate” manuscripts are better? ” Did you notice that part that says O-L-D-E-R? Do you see it? I think you might. Make sure you read this three times before you reply. I shouldnt mention the word accurate because that seems to be the only word you look at so ill put it this way. By the way please can you prove why the “O-L-D-E-R” and I would assume “more ——–” manuscripts are better?

    Do you like how i made you feel stupid…….huh? I dont appreciate that either. So like you said lets keep this an adult conversation. =)

    By the way, ill keep asking my question until you ask your question. In a real conversation, if you told me your question and we talked a little bit and then i say hey what was your question again…..you wouldnt say “Nope not telling you I already said it.” The average person would simply say it again. I mean all you gotta do is copy and paste if its super long….right? lol You did that with what you believe remember?

    Also why are you so mean? (And knowing you, you will probably throw this back at me probably about the comment about your important questions and say Im mean, but remember I am the big bad IFB guy. Im suppose to be like that. Why is the anti IFB (or whatever you are) guy bad too?) Shouldn’t you be a nice guy? Didnt Christ say love thy neighbor? Would you treat a sinner like this?

  120. @John Doe

    You’re not worth wasting anymore time on. Have a nice life. Enjoy the chains of legalism and brainwashing.

  121. Legalism – It is a term that Christians use to describe a doctrinal position emphasizing a system of rules and regulations for achieving both salvation and spiritual growth. Legalists beleive in and demand a strict literal adherence to rules and regulations. Doctrinally, it is a position essentially opposed to grace. Those who hold a legalistic position often fail to see the real purpose for law, especially the purpose of the Old Testament law of Moses, which is to be our “schoolmaster” or “tutor” to bring us to Christ (Galatians 3:24)

    Even true believers can be legalistic. We are instructed, rather, to be gracious to one another. “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters” (Romans 14:1) Sadly, there are those who feel so strongly about non-essential doctrines that they will run others out of their fellowship, not even allowing the expression of another viewpoint. That, too, is legalism. Many legalistic believers today make the error of demanding unqualified adherhence to their own biblical interpretations and even to their own traditions. For example, there are those who feel that to be spiritual one must simply avoid tobacco, alcolohic beverages, dancing, movies, etc. The truth is that avoiding these things is no guarantee of spirituality. I would add here, a strict adherence to one translation of scripture, i.e. the KJV, this is not only legalistic, but also extra-biblical. You are demanding strict adherence to a translation that the bible itself never speaks about, which is actually worse than the legalism that I have described thus far.

    The apostle Paul warns us of legalism in Colossians 2-20-23 “Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false sense of humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.” Legalists may appear to be righteous and spiritual, but legalism ultimately fails to accomplish God’s purposes because it is an outward performance instead of an inward relationship.

    To avoid falling into the trap of legalism, we can start by holding to the words of the apostle John “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17) and please let us remember to be gracious, especially to our brothers and sisters in Christ. “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand” (Romans 14:5) “You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? for we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Romans 14:10)

  122. John Doe,

    I’m not sure whether or not your enjoying the chains of brainwashing but I’m confident your blood washed (Revelation 1:5)

    blessings,

    Child of God

  123. @John 10:10
    ………..?……..weird 8/

  124. @greg
    maybe a paragraph would suffice. You also could have just said Acts 15:1

  125. Comment deleted by moderator for quality management reasons.

  126. @John Doe

    So not only do you refuse to engage in discussion by refusing to answer questions, but you also have decided to ask us questions and then when we answer your questions you tell us how we should have answered your questions. Now that’s a LOL!!!

  127. @John Doe

    Although I don’t know how he can tell that you’re “blood washed” – maybe he has special revelation to know if people are saved or not – I think John 10:10 was trying to support you. Yet you call him weird? That’s not very nice. I think you just like to argue and aren’t really interested in the truth.

  128. @greg
    Well first, I certainly have been enjoying observing from the outside some of the exchanges. It is interesting to watch all the opposing views. Please forgive my interjection without request.

    Greg, I really liked your short thesis on “legalism” and the damage it can do to God’s people. My only concern, and my basis for interrupting, is that I am always confused when people say that adherence to one particular Bible translation is wrong.

    “I would add here, a strict adherence to one translation of scripture, i.e. the KJV, this is not only legalistic, but also extra-biblical. You are demanding strict adherence to a translation that the bible itself never speaks about, which is actually worse than the legalism that I have described thus far.”

    If we are not to adhere to the Bible we read, what are we to adhere to? Are the other “Bibles” so different? If so, how do we know which one is correct?” I say to those who do not use the KJV (which I believe to be correct) that it is better to obey God as He reveals Himself in the translation you are reading than to spend your life debating the Word and not doing the Word. I found this idea from “James” chapter one verses 21 & 22. “Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.”

    Please let me know where the KJV differs in expectations to adherence from the other translations so that I can see that my adherence to this particular Bible over others is extra-biblical, legalistic, or worse.

  129. Hi Richard – You aren’t interrupting at all, glad to hear from you.

    It never ceases to amaze me how I try to be careful in explaining something and then someone like you comes along and shows me that I should have been much more careful in how I describe something. You are correct. Adhere to the bible you read, whether that be the KJV, NIV or any good translation, there are many, some not so good, I would add.

    The point I was trying to make is that oftentimes in legalistic KJV circles, the MOG (man of God) will stand up hold his bible high and say “this is the only true word of God, the 1611 KJV) which is actually pretty funny because almost all of these promoters of the “1611 KJV” have never seen one, and couldn’t read it if they did, most are carrying the 1769 revised KJV, which begs the question, if the 1611 were perfect, why revise it? Btw I do have a 1611, however, mine doesn’t contain the apocrypha.

    I consider the KJV to be a fine translation, especially considering that Erasmus worked from a manuscript base of about 6 manuscripts, and was using relatively youthful (not old) manuscripts. The main problem with the KJV as I see it, is not its accuracy, it is the old/odd language and many including myself have a difficult time understanding it. But if you are happy and can understand yours, praise God, study it, preach it, live it!! It contains the Wordsof Life!!

  130. @greg
    Greg,
    I actually figured you were trying to say something like what you finally said in this recent post.
    I agree that there are times that the oddness of the older English can be confusing and would not take issue with a new REVISION to the KJV. The problem is that revising the old does not grant a person a right to royalties & certainly the love of money is an issue. You and I both realize that the “th” endings are not necessary, even though they aren’t confusing after you get used to them.
    What does confuse me is the use of the word “offal” in place of “dung.” Until reading one of the so-called newer & easier translations, I had never heard this word. “Dung” is not so common as some words used to describe waste, but I have heard it a whole lot more than “offal.” Also, a two syllable word is harder to read than a single. I might have known the word if my degree was in waste management.

  131. @Richard

    Good to have you back Richard. I was wondering where you went. “dung” and “offal” can actually have very different meanings depending on the context. “Dung” refers strictly to manure or animal waste and has no other meaning, but “offal” can refer to waste as well as the entrails and internal organs of an animal used as food. Where did you see the word “offal” and what was the context? It may be that “offal” is actually the correct translation.

  132. OK, well not knowing if we’d hear back from Richard again I decided to do my own research. I found the term “offal” in the NIV. It looks like the term is mentioned 6 times in the OT and none in the NT.

    I see it in Exodus 19:14, Leviticus 4:11, Leviticus 8:17, Leviticus 16:27, Numbers 19:5 and Malachi 2:3. As I suspected, all are references to ceremonial laws related to the butchering of a sacrificial animal and the internal organs. Butchers still use that term today. I challenge anyone to go into a high end butcher shop and see if the butcher knows what that term means. I’d bet that he would agree that the term “offal” is the proper term to use rather than “dung”.

    So the term “dung” would actually be an inaccurate translation. “Offal” is actually the correct term to use.

    The difference I see in this is two fold: 1. As we all already know (except those in KJV only denial), this is a reference to OT ceremonial law which is no longer applicable to us NT Christians, and 2. It has no bearing on the foundation of the gospel message and therefore does nothing to detract from the message of the Bible – in fact we can see by my explanation above that using the correct term “offal” actually enhances one’s understanding of the scriptures.

    Contrast the problem of “offal” vs. “dung” in the NIV with the KJV’s terminology in I Timothy 5:11 “But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;”. Wax wanton??? eh??? What does “wax wonton” even mean and what the heck does it have to do with going against Christ or even marrying for that matter??? And this IS in the NT!!! (I’m being facetious of course – a quick peak at that verse the NIV or the NLT or the ESV or any other “modern” translation would aid in the understanding of this passage).

    I don’t know how anyone could continue to defend KJV onlyism in the face of such information.

  133. I don’t have any real problems with the KJV. What I do detest, however, is judging other Christians based on the fact they do not use the KJV. This type of thing is most unscriptural.
    There are actually places in the world where people are not allowed to own Bibles. People are actually risking their lives to get a copy of the Bible. If these people are caught with a copy of the Scriptures, they risk imprisonment, separated families, and even death. Would you judge them for not using the right translation?
    The KJ-onlys strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Instead of fighting and arguing about a particular word or manuscript, they should be demonstrating by their love and good works the difference the KJV has made in their lives. Actually, their example is hurting their own cause.
    They end up separating from everyone who doesn’t share their particular viewpoint on an issue that is not settled by Scripture, and in the process violate God’s clear command to preserve the unity of the faith. My guess is that as time goes on, the KJ-only community will get louder and more divisive and thankfully, smaller.

  134. @Katie
    Dear Katie,
    Three things I have learned from you in the last few days.
    1) You lack patience (late night the 12th til the morning of the 14th). You give a person less than two days to respond. I have alot more things to do than to discuss “dung” with you.
    2) You are more inteligent than the translators. I never said “offal” was a bad translation, nor that “dung” was the best translation. I stated that “dung” is a more common and easier word. Therefore, to say that a translation is newer and easier when using less common and more difficult words is not truthful. Notice that the new translations do not advertise as more correct, but easier to read and understand. “Waste,” “refuse,” “entrails,” or even “guts” are more common words.
    3) You do not believe the Old Testament is as Important as the New. Christ made much of the Scriptures for two reasons. #1 They testify of Him. #2 So that we can rightly understand the Christian Life.
    Why were they to get rid of the entrails? Because they were full of dung, defiled by dung. New Testament application: Christ had no defilement (dung) in Him as a sacrifice. (That is essential for salvation). We, as we present our bodies a living sacrifice, should separate ourselves from the “dung” in our lives.
    Please, never make less of the Scriptures than God does. He said, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

  135. @bob
    Bob,
    I know the crowd you speak of. I never had much time for them. I just happen to be a man who trusts the KJV.
    If you notice, the anti-KJV only crowd nomally spend their time trying to degrade the Bible when they should be saying just what you said.
    I learned a long time ago, my job is not to defend the Word but to Preach the Word. Some have a problem because I preach & teach from the KJV only. (I use none other). I do not try to correct it, or improve upon it. I preach it with the authority that it has as the Word of God.
    The only time I discuss the issue of other English translations is when asked, or when the issue has been brought to my attention because someone says “that is not the best translation.” I, myself, am not as intelligent as the scholars who translated the Bible. I have not spent my life studying greek & Hebrew. (I studied English).
    The problem with most of the debaters on the KJV issue (both sides) is that they argue based upon facts that they are not sure of. They read it, it fits my argument and so that settles it.
    For example I will give scenario used by some idiots on the KJV side. (There are examples from both sides). In a discussion on the KJV, a man said that the KJV was even better than the originals. His basis was that translations are better than the orignal. Don’t quit me yet. Enoch was translated and he was better after translation. So you see the KJV is better because it is a translation from the perfect inerrant verbally inspired originals.
    See, no argument if you think like this man. I asked him where he learned this brilliant observation. He told me, and I laughed because he had learned it from one of the KJV men who did not believe in some clear teachings for the New Testament churches.
    I, personally, plan on staying with the same partner I came to the dance with. Some of the most arrogant people I know use the KJV (most cults, crackpots & even IFBers), but most of the great revivals of the past century were inspired by this same book. Most of our modernistic churches don’t use the KJV and we cannot argue the spiritual shape of America and other English speaking countries. Is the answer that we are too intelligent to believe the Bible, so we must update it and argue about it? I do not know, but I do know this, “to obey is better than sacrifice.” & we ought to be doers of the Word, not hearers only.

  136. No offense folks but the following is for Richard, sorry for talking over your head but this is for KJV’s only:

    Mingled people from the nethermost ate snuffdishes and palmerworm every quarternion. Their sheepcote were in shambles. Naught to worry. We outwent to bewray the breeches with putrifying sores (YUCK) on the sackbut.

    Beeves armholes and emerods canker the bald locust before horseleach broilered the calves of our lips and cast the same in his teeth burning ague and chalkstones! (I couldn’t hardly believe it) Besom liers girt the hasty fruit while lapwing he ve the hindmost apothecary. the ambushment cauls chapiter from ambassage and his flesh pots freckled spot the mallows. Then nergal mufflers astonied the farthing flagons mincing mete, maw and assupim. Afterwards the college oil tree was neesings, plaiting pleasant plants and rereward ribband.

    Moreover, the portray bloody flux botch his ossifrage (hate when that happens) while the pommels pygarg his victual. Waxed rich caused a tender eyed unicorn (ah, look at the pretty unicorn) to spikernard the sabaoth the same time a cankerworm cheek teeth the exactors. But that’s not all! (No Sir, wait to you hear this) The crisping pins fell out of the chamois fray engines and succour the malefactor into the lily work! (seriously)

    For those who think this is but succothbenoth, vain janglings and superfluity of naughtiness, winefat and wist will unstopped. Trow the wreathen and gay clothing over the clift and churl the checker work down the firepans and on hungerbitten hoar frost. The latchet to the lowering has occurent and even munition. The mortar pavement is below the almug and pressfat the sheaf. Dear Richard, Understandeth what thou readeth?

  137. while lapwing he(L)ve the hindmost

    I’m sorry about that mistake, one wants to be clear whenever talking about the word of God. You know how very important communicating in clear and concise language is!!

  138. @Richard

    Now there’s the Richard we all know and love. I’m reminded why I was glad when you didn’t return to continue or first discussion.

    1) You lack patience (late night the 12th til the morning of the 14th). You give a person less than two days to respond. I have alot more things to do than to discuss “dung” with you.

    Ummmm, just how was I being impatient. I didn’t know if you’d be back, just like your previous leave of absence, so I just decided to do my own research and report my findings. You do like making assumptions don’t you???

    2) You are more inteligent than the translators. I never said “offal” was a bad translation, nor that “dung” was the best translation. I stated that “dung” is a more common and easier word. Therefore, to say that a translation is newer and easier when using less common and more difficult words is not truthful. Notice that the new translations do not advertise as more correct, but easier to read and understand. “Waste,” “refuse,” “entrails,” or even “guts” are more common words.

    Thanks for the compliment, although somehow I doubt it was a compliment. You’re very rude you know that – and to a lady. You should be ashamed!!!

    I never accused you of saying “offal” was a bad translation and that “dung” was the best translation. I merely pointed out that the term “offal” is probably more accurate than “dung”.

    What you did say was “What does confuse me is the use of the word “offal” in place of “dung.” First, You said you were confused so I was trying to clear it up. Second, I was trying to show that offal is used where the word dung is inaccurate. The term offal includes the dung. In other words, dung is too narrow a term to effectively communicate what the verse is trying to convey so it would appear that the translators substituted a more accurate term. What part of “more accurate” is giving you the most trouble?

    I don’t know why the translators chose the word “offal”. You’d have to ask them. But probably because of why I already stated, because it’s a catch all term to include “waste, refuse, entrails, and guts” – all of it. It’s probably the best term that would capture the meaning of the original language.

    They actually try to convey that the new translations are BOTH easier to understand and more accurate – which most of them are.

    3) You do not believe the Old Testament is as Important as the New. Christ made much of the Scriptures for two reasons. #1 They testify of Him. #2 So that we can rightly understand the Christian Life.

    I’ll thank you to not put words in my mouth please. I agree that the OT is just as important as the NT. I was simply commenting on the ceremonial laws – which we aren’t required to follow anymore.

    Why were they to get rid of the entrails? Because they were full of dung, defiled by dung. New Testament application: Christ had no defilement (dung) in Him as a sacrifice. (That is essential for salvation). We, as we present our bodies a living sacrifice, should separate ourselves from the “dung” in our lives.

    I think you are trying to say that it was a ceremonial law to reflect that Christ was undefiled? If so I agree. However, I think you misunderstand. It was a symbolic ceremonial law, but you are mistaken about the application. The participants were to INCLUDE the offal in the sacrifice not “get rid of” it.

    (By the way, the Exodus verse was included in my previous comment by mistake – sorry).

    Please, never make less of the Scriptures than God does. He said, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

    Please, never make MORE of the Scriptures than God does. “All scripture…” simply means the whole Bible. It doesn’t mean every bible ever written in the history of mankind. Its not an all inclusive phrase to mean every conceivable translation past, present and future.

    By the way, if you included the KJV in “all scripture” then you must also be prepared to include the NIV, NLT, ESV, etc. Remember that the KJV was once a “modern version”.

  139. @Katie
    Dear Katie,
    You ere not knowing why I left our last correspondences, but this does not surprise me.

    As to the “all Scripture” quote, I was just quoting God. This means every correct translation. If you include the NIV and others, I have not stopped you. The KJV issue is not one to me. I am very content with the Bible I have, but it seems my being content with the KJV (1769 revision) really bothers you.
    One last thought before I go. In my last post to you I used the word “thoroughly” in place of “throughly” the synonomous word by some peoples view, the updated word by others, and the correct or incorrect translation by even others. I prefer “throughly,” but have Bibles with each. I am surprised that you did not see that, and compliment me for coming out of the KJV only mentality.

    “Dung” is an accurate translation, “Dung” was the issue. Why they did not use a synonomous word in the KJV was the agreed upon option, possibly for sentence flow. (Sentence flow does not override accuracy, but is one of the reasons the KJV translators used words that some would say could have been translated differently).
    “Offal” brought me to use a dictionary, something that you in our previous correspondence thought should be unnecessary while reading the Bible.

    As to being rude, you perceive me wrongly. I was sarcastic about your intelligence, but not at all rude.

  140. In case someone wants to take my statement , “One last thought before I go,” and run with it saying I still had two more paragraphs after saying I was on my last thought. I apologize for this. Somehow the paragraph got out of order.

  141. @Richard

    You ere not knowing why I left our last correspondences, but this does not surprise me.

    I don’t really care why you left our last discussion.

    As to the “all Scripture” quote, I was just quoting God. This means every correct translation.

    It says “all scripture…” NOT “all translations of Scripture…” You are taking liberties with biblical exegesis to fit your argument.

    If you include the NIV and others, I have not stopped you. The KJV issue is not one to me. I am very content with the Bible I have, but it seems my being content with the KJV (1769 revision) really bothers you.

    You say you’re content and you say that you agree with Bob when he writes that we should have freedom to use any version of the Bible we feel is right for us, yet you continue to come here to defend the KJV only position. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. I don’t understand why.

    No it doesn’t bother me. I couldn’t care less what translation you use. What I don’t like is your close minded assertions that the KJV is the most accurate and best translation because it’s not.

    If you want to use it then go right ahead, again, I don’t care. Just keep it to yourself. It’s between you and God.

    One last thought before I go. In my last post to you I used the word “thoroughly” in place of “throughly” the synonomous word by some peoples view, the updated word by others, and the correct or incorrect translation by even others. I prefer “throughly,” but have Bibles with each. I am surprised that you did not see that, and compliment me for coming out of the KJV only mentality.

    I saw it as a typo.

    “Dung” is an accurate translation,

    For some verses it is yes, I think I already agreed to that, but as I’ve already explained not in every occurrence of the term. If you read the verses yourself and did a comparative word study you would see that the term dung is not an accurate translation in all circumstances

    “Dung” was the issue. Why they did not use a synonomous word in the KJV was the agreed upon option, possibly for sentence flow. (Sentence flow does not override accuracy, but is one of the reasons the KJV translators used words that some would say could have been translated differently).

    So it’s OK to bend things during translation for the sake of “sentence flow” in the KJV, but not in other versions? How can you not see that as biased?

    “Offal” brought me to use a dictionary, something that you in our previous correspondence thought should be unnecessary while reading the Bible.

    I don’t recall saying that or even thinking that. Not sure how you can know what my thoughts are. Can you read minds or something?

    Congrats on using a dictionary.

    As to being rude, you perceive me wrongly. I was sarcastic about your intelligence, but not at all rude.

    So you are saying that being sarcastic isn’t being rude? I just find it interesting that you can’t have an intelligent conversation by providing logical evidence of your position and as a result you resort to ad hominem fallacies but making assumptions and attacking me. I’m having major deja vu here.

  142. @Katie
    Katie, my friend, I would like to know when I defended the KJV only position. I do not know what the KJV only issue is. I have stated this over & over, but you seem to not understand.
    All I have said is that the KJV is the word of God.

    “Dung” is an accurate translation, “Dung” was the issue. Why they did not use a synonomous word in the KJV was the agreed upon option, possibly for sentence flow. (Sentence flow does not override accuracy, but is one of the reasons the KJV translators used words that some would say could have been translated differently).

    Once again I will say, as stated above, (I am assuming you overlooked my statement.), sentence flow does not override accuracy. To “Synonymize” is “To express the same meaning in different words.”
    As you know, the KJV was written 1st to be a proper translation, but then to be a poetic translation. With a proper translation we learn God’s meanings. With a poetic translation we are helped in meditation due to easy memorization resulting in motivation for the manifestation of God’s magnification. “O magnify the LORD with me, and let us exalt his name together.”

  143. Almost every comment of yours is a defense of the KJV only position by your assertions that the KJV is the best and most accurate translation.

    You know what the KJV only issue is – don’t play dumb. There’s an entire page on this very site dedicated to the KJV only issue. Just read that for more information.

    As I explained above, the word “dung” is not accurate in every instance of the term. See my above comment for additional information and my evidence for this assertion.

    Sentence flow does not overide accuracy. I agree, but I have no idea why you keep repeating that? My position would assert that the KJV would place a priority on sentence flow since the word “dung” is used incorrectly in many verses (as I already stated and gave evidence for above). The KJV is often promoted in IFB circles because of it’s “sentence flow” and poetic nature. So this idea would actually be helping my argument not your – unless I’m misunterstanding your position. If so further explanation would be appreciated.

    The KJV was first written to further the political influence of King James not to be a “proper translation”. You’ve got your historical facts wrong. Further research on your part would be advised.

    The verse you quoted states: “O magnify the LORD with me, and let us exalt his name together” NOT “O magnify the KJV with me, and let us exalt it together.”

  144. @Katie
    My dear friend Katie,
    I say confidently and correctly, no rudeness nor sarcasm interjected, but based upon your implication of your statements concerning words being used incorrectly. You think you are smarter than the KJV translators, or at least you believe those who you read after to be. I am not.

    There is not one statement you can find in all my writings that magnifies the KJV over the original texts or other proper translations. In as much as it is the word of God, (and it is), God magnifies it. “for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” (It magnifies the LORD, so I love it.) I read it, study it, respect it, yea and even cherish it. I certainly do love the word of God because it revealed Him to this poor vile sinner and was the instrument that showed me the way of life. I am not ashamed of being faithful to the Bible, (I wish I were moreso.), and I am willfully “dumb” about the KJV only issue because I am content not to debate what is settled. It, the KJV, is God’s word! God did not call me to debate, but to declare. “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.”

    “The LORD will perfect that which concerneth me: thy mercy, O LORD, endureth for ever: forsake not the works of thine own hands.” I have precious fellowship with my Savior, and He is growing me through His word. I plan to keep using the KJV, and preaching it as truth. It works: souls are saved, lives are changed, people are helped. What else can we ask for? God still uses the “Old Black Book” and He will not forsake the works of His hands.

  145. Hi Richard – I think I’m beginning to see where you are coming from. But I do have some questions/concerns, about your position. Let me add, you and I would probably agree on most issues, we would agree way more than we would disagree.

    Ok, so one of the things that IFB’s regularly do is to lift up and elevate men, in some instances to near-worship. I have noticed that in your responses you seem to elevate the KJV translators to positions they don’t deserve. They were vile, wicked sinners just as you and I. If you study their lives, you will quickly see, they stumbled in their lives as do we all. Btw Katie is a pretty sharp cookie, she may well be smarter than all the KJV translators! If I’m wrong about this, pls let me know, however that’s is how it appears to me.

    I too have been called to spread the good news of Jesus Christ through the preaching of His word contained in the bible. And I am not ashamed of being faithful to the bible. It (the NIV) is God’s word in english that I can understand, as well as the folks that I’m ministering to. (Btw, from vastly older manuscripts) God also called me to declare “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage – with great patience and careful instruction.”

  146. @greg
    Greg,
    As to the IFB exalting men, I believe it started with some of those 1st century Baptists saying I am of Paul while others said I am of Apollos. You know the super spiritual bragged because they were beyond such pettiness. (They were just a bunch of proud Baptists, who followed men, and were rebuked.) Most everybody has someone they have exalted too highly at some time in thier life.
    As to the KJV translators, I have never said anything good or bad concerning them. I try to be careful about discussing particular men, especially when all I know of them is second or third hand gossip. I have heard that all men are liars, which would include the translators of other Bibles also.
    As to Katie being smarter than the KJV translators, I do not know. She is probably, based upon that assumption, smarter than the translators of the other Bibles also. She is probably just another vile, wicked sinner who yielded to the Holy Ghost and trusted Christ. Is cookie a good term to call a lady?
    As to your ability to understand the Bible, I believe you can understand as well as my children, and the people to whom I have ministered, and do minister. Over 12 years I spent in prisons a minimum of three days a week, dealing with some very under educated men. Very seldom was there one who could not grasp the KJV. (More often than not they were told that they could not understand it, an admission to the failure in our school system, and an unwillingness to give a few minutes to teach basic English. I read shakespearean type English in 7th or 8th grade as we learned English Literature, and again when I took English Literature courses in the following years.) My children learned to read from the KJV gospel of John. They were reading at four years old using phonetics (sounding out all of those single-syllable words). It took patience to teach them to read just like it take longsuffering (great patience) to teach the Bible.
    Let me explain this in one clear, concise statement. You could understand the KJV if you wanted to.
    For one last thought: “Older” is not synonymous with “better,” & “Majority” does not mean “correct.” In one of my lessons, called “Richard’s Rules for Bible Study”, I teach a rule “Words mean what words mean.” I try to apply that rule to life.

  147. Greg,
    As I read over my last post, I noticed that I forgot to thank you for realizing that I am just a person like you. I just happen to use, and believe the KJV.
    Other than the KJV only issue and over exaltation of certain men, what else is so different between the IFB and say other Baptist groups? I’ve preached in many SBC, MBA, ABA, and GARB, as well as Independent churches in the past 16 years. I do not see much difference.

  148. Richard – I was hoping that we could carry on a decent conversation, I enjoy debating, however I do not like being called a liar, as you have done in this latest post. “You could understand the KJV if you wanted to.”

    You are demonstrating all through this latest comment that you are fundy to the core, and appear to be as bad as they get!

    You appear to be double-minded as the KJV phrase goes, about the KJV translators:

    Dec 17, to Katie “You think you are smarter than the KJV translators”

    Dec 14, to Bob “The anti-KJV crowd, “I, myself, am not as intelligent as the shcolars who translated the bible”

    Dec 14, to Katie “You are more intelligent than the translators”

    So, Richard which is it? Are you venerating these Anglican translators or not? Are they smarter than all of us, including the translators of newer versions? Or for that matter the translators which preceeded them? What is it that makes you think that these fellas are so special, more than other translators?

    1st Century Baptists! You are hilarious! This is more fundy than the above! You need to study Sir. I’m not even going to crush this stupidity, it’s not worth wasting my time. Katie would actually do a much better job than I, but she saw through you more quickly than I, and is probably done with you. Let me say this and be done on the matter. Our Precious Saviour is coming back to planet Earth looking for blood-covered “Christians” not just “Baptists” The sooner you get that through your head, the better off you will be, and God will perhaps grant you more knowledge into His work and Kingdom. Seriously Richard, man to man, christian to christian, please for your sake and any you come into contact with, please humble yourself!

    Going to close for now because sometimes it won’t take a long post, yea there’s more coming!

  149. Richard – continuing. So you object to my referring to Katie as a “sharp cookie” well from where I come from, that would be considered a compliment. (Katie, I apologize if you were offended, I did mean it a compliment.)

    The anti-KJV crowd? Where are they? Where do they meet? I constantly hear and see poorly educated KJVonly’s espousing the magical properties of the KJV, but I never see anyone running around trying to tear down the KJV, as the KJVonly’s constantly do. My old fundy church had tracts that had titles such as “The NIV Perversion” “What’s wrong with the New King James Version” etc. I have found nothing from the vast “NIV Only Conspiracy Group” showing that there’s is the only true word of God, or anything similar to the KJVonly’s preoccupation with their favorite translation.

    To be continued:

  150. Richard – continuing. You said “older is not synonymous with better.” I looked back at my comment, because I didn’t think I had said that, and in fact I did not. It was becoming obvious that you didn’t seem to know much about translation issues, (you seem to admit as much) and I thought I might try to educate you alittle.

    Now to the funnest part!! I’m delighted you brought up “Richard’s Rules for Bible Study” You said you teach a rule “Words mean what words mean.” Well at least we agree about this! You further said “I try to apply that rule to life.” Good luck with that, because it doesn’t appear you are having much success with it.

    So with the above in mind, let’s look at a few KJV words and phrases, shall we? (I could have provided dozens)

    suffer, filthy lucre, lunatick, wax, charity, gay clothing, advertise, allege, conversation, communicate, take through, prevent, meat, anon, by and by.

    Now according to you and your rule “Words Mean What Words Mean” you’ve got a small problem. Not one of these words mean today what they meant four centuries ago. Do your convicts have any problems with these words which no longer mean what they use to, or because they are studying the KJV, the Holy Spirit (not Ghost, ghosts are spirits of deceased people that scare folks…that was sarcasm)

    The above is one of my major problems with KJVonly’s. They will not recognize that language changes, always, the dictionary publishers post new words every year, and many words change meaning. It’s a fact! You know this, but in that fundy mind of yours, you are attempting to explain all of this away, instead of simply recognizing, you are wrong and have been for years. Richard, it’s ok to admit you are wrong, God will richly bless you, if you go to him and admit what a fool you’ve been over this issue for so many years, God has many new things for you, if you will simply get over this hurdle, as it is, you will probably stay right where you are, not going fwd at all, when your ministry could reach vastly further than you can even imagine right now.

    To be continued:

  151. Richard – continuing. You said “Majority does not mean correct” I never said anything at all about the “Majority Text.”

    Let’s just look at one verse: Hebrews 2:18

    KJV – “For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to (SUCCOUR) them that are tempted.”

    NIV – “Because he Himself suffered when He was tempted, He is able to (HELP) those who are being tempted.”

    NKJV – “For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted he is able to (AID) those who are tempted.”

    I challenge you to go to the prison and read this verse to the prisoners, and then ask if any of them knows what this means. Then I want you to go to the elementary school and do the same. You could even go by the local university. You could probably not find one person that knows what this verse means! Do you really believe that our God, the one that made this Universe and everything in it, wants his Precious word, to be obscured like this to the objects of His love? THINK, please!

    God wants us to be able to understand His word! He places an extremely high priority on His word. Jesus “is” the Word!! Oh my goodness, won’t you please see that!! The above verse will minister to precious, hurting folks if they could only understand it!!

    I think I’m finished. There is something here for you Richard, if you will only grasp it. I sorta have a feeling you aren’t ready for it yet, but God is able!

    Do not think or tell someone that I have attacked the KJV translation. I have not. It is a good translation in Elizabeathan English, however it is a “translation.” Many good translations came before it and many came after it. I think I’ll close with a quote from your favorite folks, the KJV translators.

    “A variety of translations is necessary for the finding out of the sense of the scriptures.”

  152. In my post #50 above, I didn’t finish my thought about the Holy Spirit, which was “does the Holy Spirit magically reveal these things to them. (making words that no longer mean what they use to mean clear to those who read the KJV.)

  153. @greg
    Greg,
    Five things.
    1. I was boasting on your ability, not attempting to call you a liar. I truly believe anyone with a sound mind,willing heart, and possibly a dictionary can understand any commonly used English translation.
    2. Most 1st Century Christians were Baptistic by definition.
    3. I did not say “cookie” was a bad word. I asked a question.
    4. The Holy Spirit miraculously reveals all spiritual truth.
    5. I have already in my posts stated that I have no problem with an up to date revision. I use an updated revision from the 1611, but there is a possibility that someone (smarter than me) could make a new update. (Revisions do not grant royalties. Maybe that’s why they continously come up with new versions instead of revisions to the old.)

  154. @greg

    Greg,
    As to the 1st Century Church being basically Baptistic, I only brought that up as a little humour (though it is true) in order to show that it is not only IFBers who exalt men beyond due measure. This was an issue I did not expect to cause controversy, but I have begun to realize that everything must be said in your words or be wrong. (That sounds like the IFB that you so oppose, or a political debate.) Please lighten up, I do not have a web-site attacking ex-IFBers, and do not know of any.

    Baptists historically believed in Believer’s Baptism, Autonomy of the Church, Priesthood of every Believer, Individual Soul Liberty, & the Lordship of Jesus Christ (not just positionally, but practically in the life of the Believer). These are what makes Baptistic churches so diverse.
    (There is no specific order of service, though most are similar. Some are more Calvanistic than others. Some seem to have extreme stances on issues. etc.) This is who Baptists were, and who we are.

    The Problem comes, just as it did in the 1st century, when some church or individual would come into another church, and because they were different say they are wrong. (The case is not always so.)

    My friends, you do not have to go to church every time the door is open to be right with God. You do not have to tithe (you should give him your only son, not just one out of ten). You do not have to dress to any standard. Matter of fact, it is only a strong recommendation to you (as a gentile believer) to abstain from fornication according to Acts 15. What you & I are expected to do is obey His voice, and not harden our heart. (I learned that from the KJV, and the sweet Holy Ghost of God.)

    I know many Baptists of today, especially some of the IFBers, do not believe in Repentance & Submission to the Lord Jesus Christ at salvation. That is because they do not believe the KJV Bible as it is written. (Please, before you start sounding like many of my foolish friends in the IFB, do not think for one second that I believe in a “works” salvation. I believe in a salvation that works). Salvation is not limited to Christ paying for our sins, but includes His purchasing us, purging us, and preparing us for glory. This is done, not without our will, but because we are willing. I say all this to let you understand that the fact of Christ’s Lordship over His believers was of the utmost importance, and still is, for any man, woman, boy, or girl to rightly understand and live the other Bible distinctives that were mentioned above.

    Hope you have a Merry Christmas! (If you are anti-Christmas, do not try to correct me about things please. I am not as Christmassy as some, but want you to have a merry Christmas whether it is Jesus birthday or not. I can enjoy Him on everyday so it does not really matter to me.) Have a merry (joy-filled) everyday.

  155. I would say that any church which is KJV-Only, Landmarkist, or self-identifies as “Independent Fundamental Baptist” is a cultic church. Especially if they talk incessantly about being “seperated”.

  156. @Nicholas
    Nicholas, I have some questions for you concerning your post?

    1. What do you define as a cultic church? Is it one that holds narrower stands than you (whether right or wrong)?
    2. Why does it matter what you would say? “I would say” Instead of telling us what you would say, say something. When Christ spoke, it is said, “Thus saith” not “Thus He might say” or “thus He would say.”
    3. Do you consider your opinion as truth?
    4. What is wrong with being cultic? According to historians, and many in the political elite of the day, all Christian denominations and curches are cults.

    Please do not be upset with my seeming to be opposing and nit-picky. I just believe that when a man or boy (even the dear ladies) makes a statement, he ought to be able to back up his beliefs.

    One thing I like about this page is that, even though not everybody agrees on everything, most try to defend their views. What I find is that some are opposed to the KJV because it does not agree with their views, some are opposed to standards (like “no shoes, no shirt, no service), some were hurt by idiotic preachers and teachers, etc.

    Why do you believe the “IFB” churches are cultic? Are you making a fair assessment? According to my definition of cultic, possibly. Remember I believe cultic means what cultic means, therefore most groups that follow one leader (like our Lord Jesus Christ) would fall into that category.

    I “ain’t skeered” or am not afraid to be called cultic. There is nothing wrong with it if you have the right Leader & the right Book.

  157. @Nicholas
    Do you have an issue with 2nd Corinthians 6:17, which is dealt with in the Old Testament Numbers 16, and is taught in the principle of Psalm 1? Would you rather them to inccessantly say “It is Okie Dokie to continue in sin”?

    “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” or “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?”

    The Lord’s desire is that we be wholly separated unto Him in holiness, departing from our self satisfying sin-filled past. It is the message of Christ and the cross. “Come unto me” from everything else that keeps you away. Remember, salvation is not about hell, but is about sin according to Matthew 1:21.

    The picture God uses of our separation to Him is marriage according to Ephesians. My question for you is: If you are getting married, do you want your bride to be wholly separated to you? That means that she plans to love, honor, cherish, and obey, in good times and bad, in sickness and health, for richer or poorer, forsaking (this means separating herself from all her ex or future planned boyfriends) all others, til death do us part. Does not our Lord have the right to expect the same from His beloved bride?

  158. Rev. Paul D. Larrimore

    Ok guy’s, I feel this chattering is becoming less haelpful and just argumentative to those who may really be searching for truth here. First I was an Independent Fundamental minister years ago as I said sometime before. So I know what I’m talking about here. True the Seperate part is indicuative of Cult’s, but the Fundamental part of it ( And there are other Independent Fundamental churches that do not shre the Baptist tag) Do not have the same meaning in the seperation doctrine.

    The churches jsut strictly teach the teaching’s of Paul in Corinthians regarding separating from wayward christians or those living in open sin. Not the same as Cult teachings. Also separating from worldly amusement’s etc., all which is biblical teaching. The fundamental churches just harp on it too much without love and understanding of others.

    Be separate yes. But not as far as some of them and I might include, Pentecostal churches as well believe in this doctrine. And again it’s biblical , the harm is when we get legalistic about it.

    Final note: The Puritan’s were seperat’s as well who incidentally help start this country. That’s why they left England to be separate from their worldly belivers in England and the wordly church there.

  159. @Rev. Paul D. Larrimore
    I agree. Being an Independent Fundamental Baptist church does not mean you are a cult. I am sure many IFB churches are cult-like, but not all of them are.

    The reason I think that these churches are cult-like is not so much the teaching itself as bad as it is, but the authority in the church. Churches become cults when the authority of God and His word are substituted, undermined,or usurped by the word of man. What happens is man, or oftentimes the pastor in these cases sets himself up as the authority in the church, when in fact he should be pointing people to the Scriptures as the only authority in the church. In short, the pastor sets himself up as a ruling authority, infringing on the place that only God and His word should have in our hearts. Of course, the cultish pastor “uses the Bible” to persuade people of his legitimate authority, but he only gets a foothold where people are ignorant of the Scriptures or don’t have a relationship with Jesus. Jesus said,” My sheep hear My voice and they follow Me”. Also, “A stranger they will not follow”.

    A Christian may be tricked or deceived, but he will never be comfortable in a cult-like environment.

  160. I had one more thought about cult-like leaders. There is a man who is mentioned in the Bible as being a type of bully. When I read about him in 3 John, I was amazed how similar the characteristics are to some pastors I have dealt with.
    The first thing about this man,Diotrephes, was that he likes to put himself first. He was ego-centric. This type of thing was prohibited by Jesus teaching about sevant-leadership in Matthew 20:25-28. Have you ever met a church leader like this?

    The other thing was that he did not acknowledge the apostles authority. The apostles had delegated authority from Christ to set down doctrine in the early church. This is the modern day equivalent of refusing to be accountable to the authority of Scripture. For example, you could not go to him with an open Bible and show him where he was going wrong. Guess what happened to people who dared to question Diotrephes. He threw them out of the church. Does any of this sound familiar to you?

    Thankfully, the apostle John knew how to deal with a bully. He said,”when I come, I will bring up what he is doing”. John knew that sin needed to be dealt with head on, not in a back room out of public view ( 1Tim. 5:20). It is good for everyone (believer and unbeliever alike) to see sin dealt with as a serious matter, especially when it involves leaders in the church.

  161. @bob
    It is interesting that this past week I was at a pastors training class for Baptist (mainly Independent) pastors and we all were in much agreement that some of our brethren have been out of line in the way they pastor. Matter of fact some of the instructors & students admitted to have been that way in the past. (None who were desiring the preeminance).
    Where I agree is that some pastors go overboard, but where I tend to not go as far as you is when you limit the pastor’s authority in the church to just the Scripture. He is to oversee the whole of the church business (spiritual & secular). He is the responsible party according to Hebrews 13:17 and must give an account for the sheep under his care. This he is to do with the best interest of the sheep in mind & heart even when he cannot necessarily line it up with a particular chapter & verse. Paul did this in Corinthians when he spoke by permission and not of commandment. The idea is that the principle is evident if you studied, but there was no verse he could refer to specifically.
    Again, I say many of Baptists and others have been overbearing to the precious sheep of God, but most are not attempting to be dictators. They are just men who lead without the Holy Ghost guidance at times. (For you arrogant folks who might read this, I will inform you that you have done the same at times for your own life and others who are to follow you.)

  162. Richard,
    I appreciate your response, and I agree with you that elders have authority for leading the church. So what does biblical leadership look like? Is it like the military, or a business model?
    Jesus was pretty clear that the church leadership model was completely opposite of the gentile ruler model. The leader must be the servant, just as Jesus did not come to be served but to give His life as a ransom for many. Jesus led by example and invited people to follow Him. He was never harsh, or intimidating to people. People were drawn to follow Jesus because He was completely opposite of the leadership in that day. Jesus must have been so friendly and gentle that children would be drawn to Him. How many times does it tell us in the gospels that Jesus was “moved with compassion” before He healed someone. When people questioned His authority to cleanse the temple, Jesus graciously promised them a sign.
    2 timothy 2:24 says that the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but kind to all, able to teach, and patient when wronged. They must correct opposition with gentleness (not severity or intimidation). By the way, first and second Timothy make for an interesting study of church authority. Notice that Paul did not instruct his apostolic delegate to use his authority to throw Paul’s opposition out of the church. The apostles’ instruction was to confront false teachers with the authority of the Scriptures. My point is this, Paul and Timothy didn’t use their authority to restructure the problematic church at Ephesus, because that is not the way Biblical authority works. Difficult people are to receive patient and gentle leadership. Even a factious man is to be given two warnings. The problems at Ephesus were eventually overcome by faithfully teaching the Word of God along with godly character in the preacher which testified to the authenticity of the message. This contrasted over against the false teachers who lacked christ-likeness.
    I think authoritarian leadership is natural to human nature, that is probably why it is as common as it is. There is something magnetic and attractive in christlike leadership, and God’s people know it when they see it. I also think that most pastors have learned from watching someone else, and I am sure there are more bad examples than good.
    I am not sure who the “arrogant folks” are, but I hope I am not one of them!

  163. @bob
    That is exactly what I see. Most pastors are like most leaders. They start out either timid or tough, and learn to lead through experience. That is one reason it is bad to have a novice as the pastor.
    Most people need time to learn to lean on the Holy Spirit. That was actually one of the emphasized aspects of the training I was at last week.
    Only foolish pastors, who do not know Christ and the sweet Spirit of grace, are unable to recognize after a short time how much they need to depend on Him to lead us as leaders.
    As to the “arrogant folks” I referred to, I am not talking about you.

  164. I have enjoyed some of these latest exchanges, folks are expressing their ideas w/out getting personal and nasty. Christians can disagree agreeably, some more than others I might add!

    Bob you are so dead-on with your post #59. This is exactly what transpires so often times, with the MOG beginning to usurp God’s authority and attempting to take the place in our lives that only God and His word should have.

    I determined some years ago that I would make God’s word the ultimate authority in my life, if the MOG stayed with the word, I would support him, if he did not, I would simply move on after trying to show him what God’s word says.

    I found so very much wrong teaching in the IFB. It seems that most of their teaching on separation, tithing (no such thing taught to any NT christian) divorce/remarriage, clothing standards, church attendance, etc, were woefully lacking in biblical understanding/knowledge. At one point I was scolded for my precious 3-yr old son wearing a pair of short pants to church (can you believe that!!!) I’m embarrassed I stayed in that (near-cult) for so long.

    God is so good! I encourage everyone, particularly those still caught up in the legalism that is the IFB to examine everything under the bright light of scripture, yes even the KJV, if you can understand it. I have a hard time with it, but God’s will for you is clear in this Anglican, 17th century, Shakesperean, revised 8 times, translation.

  165. @greg
    Dear Greg,
    I am kind of confused about your statement inferring wrong teaching by those who are IFB about separation.
    1) Tithing was never an issue, because the NT Christian belongs to the Lord. Therefore, everything he has is the Lord's, not merely 10%. If you have a problem with giving God a measely 10% of what you prosper, when He has given you everything, I wonder if you have given Him everything. According to Hebrews the principle of tithing is taught in Abraham. (I did say principle, not law. Abraham was before the law, and Hebrews is in the NT the last I checked.)
    2) About Divorce/Remarriage, I hope you hate what God hates. He hates Divorce, therefore remarriage is not an issue. Divorce is an option for the hard hearted, and is the terrible tragedy to those who hate it but have been divorced.
    3) As to clothing standards, I do believe God is against immodesty, and expects men not to dress feminine nor women manly. (My son does not wear pink pantsuits, and my daughter does not wear masculine cut jeans.) There are people who cross dress, and those who are immodest. This ought not be the mark of a mature Christian. (You did good not to knock him silly, if he SCOLDED you. I am not saying you should have, but scolding is pretty harsh terminology where I come from.)
    4) Concerning church attendance, I am for it, regularly, often, consistently. I do not know what you were told, but my experience, when I was driving trucks for a living taught me to appreciate our little church back home. I guess I loved the brethren, and they loved me. Any one who does not want to be around the brethren, especially the flock he is part of, that prays for him regularly, needs to check up about whether He even knows Christ.
    5) As to the KJV, I personally would be ashamed to say I do not understand English. I learned it in High School taking English Literature and American Literature classes. They were taught as part of the regular English courses to a degree in every grade Junior High on up. English was a required course for all my four years of High School in order to graduate, even in my home state of Tennessee.
    I am not attempting to offend you. I have seen some preachers who rant-and-rave about issues such as you have mentioned and others such as "soul-winning" (an unscriptural term), but most of the IFB churches I have preached in (multiple hundreds) are much more concerned about your relationship with Christ than your standards.
    My question to you is, what exactly is wrong with using 10% as a starting point for teaching young Christians on the amount for financial giving? Is that not what our schoolmaster taught? What is wrong with teaching that divorce/remarriage are not the will of God? (He does hate the putting away, and declares that the reason Moses gave such an ordinance was because of the hardness of the heart.) Is it wrong for us to agree with God about modesty? Do you believe God taught in law (OT), thus expects in principle for His people to live a life separated unto Him and from worldliness? (whatever that entails must be left for later discussions.)

  166. Richard,
    I am not sure what you meant by saying, “remarriage is not an issue”. If you mean that God never allows a divorced person to remarry, would you please explain from Scripture why you believe this is the case.

  167. Richard – I am not at all confused about the judgemental way you express yourself, many of us here are used to it.

    1) Using Abraham as an example for tithing is very interesting. So if I’m ever in a war I guess I’ll tithe the “spoils” and not worry at all about “my” personal income, and btw this was apparently a one-time event, does any of this matter to you? Aren’t we suppose to “rightly divide the word of truth?” I think this is fairly sloppy exegesis, if you ask me. NT giving is very clear in the scripture. 2 Corinthians 9:7 “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, (why) for God loves a cheerful giver.”

    2) Do you realize that God Almighty, Creator of all things would not be qualified to be a pastor in most IFB churches? Why? Because he endured the pain of divorce himself, if you knew your KJV you would know that. Jeremiah 3:8 “And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce;”

    3) I certainly believe in modesty, God’s word teaches it. God’s word teaches against cross-dressing.

    4) I’m all for church attendance, but it’s not a law, and the NT clearly teaches us not to “esteem one day more than another.”

    5) You reserved your most strongest criticism for your golden calf “the KJV” So I’m just lying when I tell you I have a hard time understanding the KJV, yea, don’t know any English. Are you calling me and thousands of others liars Richard? Ok, so how about an open book test Richard, even you should be able to pass an open book test. Turn your golden ca……er KJV to 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 and tell me what the following verses mean. “O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.” …..now you can’t look to any modern versions, why I’m sure you wouldn’t have any of those perversions lying around your house anyway…. ok….waiting…….still waiting…….that’s what I thought, you have no idea either. Do you really think God wants His word obscured like this? Ok go ahead and pick up an NIV or other good modern translation and see what this precious man of God was trying to convey to this mixed-up bunch of folks…..isn’t it wonderful!!Reading and understanding the precious word of God!!!!

    You really need to try some humility…..the KJV teaches it, really it does…..don’t come on here or anywhere really and be so haughty, it is obvious that you, like the rest of us, are made from the dust and are constantly learning. But why do I think you will not receive any of this correction happily and gladly?

  168. Rev. Paul D. Larrimore :Also separating from worldly amusement’s etc., all which is biblical teaching.

    Yet you provide no biblical reference – interesting.

    The fundamental churches just harp on it too much without love and understanding of others.

    JUST??? You’re minimizing something that’s very dangerous. It’s pretty abusive to “harp on [something] too much without love and understanding of others” wouldn’t you say? Yet you hand wave it like they are JUST eating a hot dog.

    That’s like saying – “Oh, he JUST beat him over the head with a crow bar, nothing too serious.”

    Pffffft. Pathetic.

  169. @bob
    Bob, what I was attempting to bring to light is that God hates divorce. He loves restoration. (I say this for Greg’s benefit. God and Israel are going to be fully restored, and He still takes care of His wayward wife.)
    If Christian’s (not the world) were not hard hearted, there would be more emphasis on not hurting God’s heart by being self willed and filing for divorce. Then, if there is a divorce, the focus would be on restoration, not re-starting my life. It is a heart issue.
    Sometimes though, a person does everything right & still things don’t work out. I weep with my friends in this condition. Usually, that is not the case. People often get remarried before they give God every chance at restoration.
    I do not ever deal with things as law, but I am convinced God says that if you are loosed from a wife seek not a wife, He means it. So I recommend to men who are divorced, don’t go looking for a new wife.

  170. @Richard

    One thing about at least the Baptist denomination is that they believe a person only ‘becomes’ a pastor if the baton is passed down to him by another Baptist ‘pastor’.
    They do not teach that ALL believers are teachers of the Word, wherever the Lord has placed us in this world, to any other believers in our proximity.

    These Baptist preachers (and others) are appointed by man, not having the annointing of the Spirit of God. These are “learning to lead” by the training they received by other wolves in the pulpits and then the theology colleges these wolves went to for their training.

  171. @greg
    Greg, Greg, Greg,
    You are hard on me, when I said nothing toward you to make you be so harsh. I thought we were brethren. I wonder now.
    Concerning tithing, I guess I will go ahead and quote God from the NT about tithing. He’s for it. You can argue with Him about it. All I said about Abraham is that he did it. Maybe you do not think he did. I just read the Book and believed that Abraham tithed, and it did not take a law to make him. He did it out of love.
    Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
    Luke 11:42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
    Should they or shouldn’t they tithe? God says emphatically, “Yes” He is for it, but do not forget to put first things first. He was trying to tell them to get their priorities right.

    Now if you want to know what I believe about priorities check out http://www.candlestickbaptist.org and listen to my S/s class for March 4th, 2012. Also you can listen to some great IFB preaching on our site.

    As to church attendance, I am glad you agree with what I said. I am for it, you are too. I go because I love the brethren, need the encouragement. I live in the wicked city of Houston and I love having a refuge where I can be around those who love me and are committed to living by the grace of God.

    As to the KJV, you have already shown me by your abrasive attitude towards it, that we have nothing to discuss. You seem to have more problems with what it says than what you can’t figure out. This saddens me.

    O concerning compulsion to tithe. The love of Christ constrains (according to my thesaurus a synonomous word to compel, press into doing something) me to do a lot more than tithe. I gave Christ me, therefore money is no issue.

    Please re-read my previous post and explain what I said (in context of my post) that turned you so against me. I did not think I misarticulated my thoughts. I thought we would be in agreement. That is why I asked questions? (none of which was answered).

  172. @Shannon
    Shannon,
    I certainly would love to know what Baptist theology book you got that from. This is the first time I ever heard this doctrine.
    God called me, and no man has handed me a baton, though I hope the Elijah to Elisha was not wrong.
    I just have never heard of such as you say. Please enlighten me more. I have only been saved 24 years and have preached in hundreds of different Baptist churches of almost every flavor out there, and you through a wrench right in the middle of everything I have been taught.
    Shannon, you, if you are saved are part of the “ye brigade.” You know who I mean, the ones to whom God said, “Go ye” & “Ye shall receive power … to witness …”

    Bless your heart. I feel bad for you if someone did not teach you such Bible doctrines such as Individual Soul Liberty & the Priesthood of Every Believer.

  173. Richard,
    I agree in principle with your latest post. The reason I question your response is because you said earlier that, “divorce is an option for the hard hearted”. I would certainly agree that many divorces are the result of a hard hearted spouse or spouses who are unwilling to submit to God. I don’t think anyone here disagrees with the clear teaching of Scripture that God hates divorce.
    I only want to point out that in certain cases, divorce is an option. If Jesus said that divorce is permitted in the case of immorality, than I am going to stand where Jesus stands on this issue. By the way, I think forgiveness and restoration are always to be preferred, and opportunity should be given to the offender to seek repentance. But repentance doesn’t always happen.
    A belief that is different from what the Bible teaches is wrong, no matter how it differs. Easy divorce is wrong, and so is no divorce for any reason. A “no divorce for any reason position” might seem like error on the side of caution, but it is error nonetheless.
    I will be happy to entertain your response, and I do enjoy thinking through some of these issues.

  174. @bob
    Bob,
    You have just hit on one of the most delicate issues I know in our self willed generation. Divorce, when it is permitted. The verses I refer to are Mattew 19:8&9.

    “He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

    “Porneia” is translated “fornication” which is different than “immorality” as you see it translated. How can divorce, except it be for general immorality (which is a very broad word) cause someone to be in danger of “adultery”?

    Please, remember this is a discussion, not an attack session, if you want to chime in. I am a lover not a fighter.

  175. @bob
    Bob,
    Dealing with divorce options is one of the most sensitive areas of our society. I guess it is because so many are hurt as the more innocent party on one side, and being hard hearted has to be justified by the other. My take on the issue is very conservative, and is considered by many to be very insensitive to those going through this most tradgic event. I believe just the opposite, if we accept, permit, and even promote divorce for any cause other than what Jesus limits it to (in the church, I refer not to the unregenerate. I am not a moralist, I am a Christian.), we are helping to destroy society. For those who have experienced this ripping asunder of your very core, I sympathize and recommend you go on with the Lord, and allow Him to bring you contentness in your state.
    Mattew 19:8-9 “He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

    “Porneia” is translated here “fornication.” You use the word “Immorality.”
    “Fornication” is a common word used for sexual relations outside the confines of marriage. “Immorality” is a much more general word.
    If I look at a woman who is well proportioned for more than a glance, my wife could legitimately divorce me based upon “immorality.” If I watch a sexual scene in a PG-13 episode, or read a sexual scene, we could get divorced. Sounds almost like “any cause.”
    “Fornication” was a justifiable argument for divorce, because you were not getting what you bargained for. In the jewish economy especially, since betrothal was an already contracted marriage, it was necessary to give a writing of divorcement if you backed out on the deal. (Joseph & Mary for example). This is OT teaching, and good principle for the church, but not law. Remember the Gospels were transitional books between the OT & the NT. Jesus lived in the OT. He died to bring in the NT.
    Where under the NT economy does it give “immorality” as a justification for divorce?
    Paul by the Holy Ghost said to the most carnal of all the churches what God’s view was on Christian divorces. (1Corinthians 7:10-11) “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.”
    No exception clause for “immorality” or “forncation.”
    Just a thought, Do you know what happened if you committed “adultery” under the law? Divorce was not an option. You either forgave or had the offender put to death. WWJD? I did not say What would the natural hardhearted man do?

  176. Richard :
    @greg
    Greg, Greg, Greg,
    You are hard on me, when I said nothing toward you to make you be so harsh. I thought we were brethren. I wonder now.

    Richard this is pretty manipulative. You sound like a little school girl that got her feelings hurt by a friend and is now trying to take her friend on a guilt trip (“I thought we were friends.” – said in a girlish whiny tone).

    You’ve got problems with handling constructive criticism and that’s your downfall because it leaves you in a closed minded, defense mode. You’re taking it personally and as a result you can’t see past your own pious, self-righteous attitude. It’s pathetic and leaves us with a sour taste in our mouths and only serves to reinforces our determination to speak out against the IFB.

    Personally I wish Steve would block you. It’s ridiculous.

  177. Richard :I am kind of confused about your statement inferring wrong teaching by those who are IFB about separation.1) Tithing was never an issue, because the NT Christian belongs to the Lord. Therefore, everything he has is the Lord’s, not merely 10%. If you have a problem with giving God a measely 10% of what you prosper, when He has given you everything, I wonder if you have given Him everything. According to Hebrews the principle of tithing is taught in Abraham. (I did say principle, not law. Abraham was before the law, and Hebrews is in the NT the last I checked.)

    How is tithing “giving to God” then? If everything is already the Lords, as you say, then we shouldn’t need to give 10% should we?

    If everything is already the Lords then aren’t churches that teach tithing really teaching that we tithing to the church and not the Lord? I mean that’s commons sense.

    About Divorce/Remarriage, I hope you hate what God hates. He hates Divorce,

    Where is that in the Bible?

    Actually God never said he hates divorce – yet another translation error of the KJV.

    As to clothing standards, I do believe God is against immodesty, and expects men not to dress feminine nor women manly. (My son does not wear pink pantsuits, and my daughter does not wear masculine cut jeans.) There are people who cross dress, and those who are immodest. This ought not be the mark of a mature Christian.

    Where is that in the Bible?

    Concerning church attendance, I am for it, regularly, often, consistently. I do not know what you were told, but my experience, when I was driving trucks for a living taught me to appreciate our little church back home. I guess I loved the brethren, and they loved me. Any one who does not want to be around the brethren, especially the flock he is part of, that prays for him regularly, needs to check up about whether He even knows Christ.

    Why do you assume that if people don’t want to go to church they equally don’t want to “be around the brethren”? Where is it in the Bible that the “flock” is supposed to “check up about whether he even knows Christ”? Wouldn’t that be judgmental?

    As to the KJV, I personally would be ashamed to say I do not understand English. I learned it in High School taking English Literature and American Literature classes. They were taught as part of the regular English courses to a degree in every grade Junior High on up. English was a required course for all my four years of High School in order to graduate, even in my home state of Tennessee.

    Well not everyone can be as smart as you. Unfortunately, whether you chose to believe it or not, there are people who don’t understand Shakespearian English very well. By the way, you were taught English, NOT Shakespearian English. I would venture a guess that there was a point in time that you didn’t understand English very well. Did you know that the average reading level is 6th grade? Does that mean that the average person just shouldn’t read the Bible since they can’t understand it? You’re education has made you more dumb (or at least more ignorant).

    Given the stats, half of the US population can’t understand the KJV, yet you’d rather promote the KJV than a version that others would understand. You are putting an emphasis in the wrong direction. It seems so backwards to me that you’d place a priority on a bible version instead of people.

    Also, you keep making all these claims about what’s truth, but you never back it up with scripture. How do you defend your promotion of the KJV above the needs of people to understand the bible with scripture?

    My question to you is, what exactly is wrong with using 10% as a starting point for teaching young Christians on the amount for financial giving? Is that not what our schoolmaster taught?

    Everything is wrong with it. It’s manipulative, sinful, deceptive, unscriptural – for starters. It’s a sin to teach something that’s not scriptural as if it were scriptural.

  178. Richard :
    Divorce is an option for the hard hearted, and is the terrible tragedy to those who hate it but have been divorced.

    This is a good example of the black and white (all or nothing – no gray areas) thinking of the IFB. Not everything is as black and white or cut and dry as you’d like to pretend it is.

    What about abuse? Would you really say that if a wife left her husband and got a divorce because he was beating her that she has a hard heart?

    You’re beliefs come across as insensitive and unsympathetic. Two things that are opposite of what Jesus demonstrated/taught in his ministry (see the story of the woman at the well for an example).

  179. @Charles
    Matthew 23 certainly sounds insensitive and unsympathetic to the Pharisees and to Jerusalem, but it was true. Those our Lord would have loved on (I did not say loved. We know he loved them) refused Him and His truth.
    I may speak straight but not insensitively. I live daily with the result of sin.

  180. Richard – Who is being harsh here. You questioned whether I have given God “everything.” You questioned whether I “hate what God hates.” You questioned my salvation “needs to check up whether he knows Christ.” And top it off with telling me how stupid I am that I don’t understand Shakesperean English “I would be ashamed to say I didn’t know English.” I’m thick-skinned, so I don’t much care, but I wish for the sake of the brethern you wouldn’t be so….judgemental!

    Once and for all, tithing was for Jews under the law, the items tithed were never money but agricultural products from the land. A redneck, uneducated preacher, with a basement bible college diploma saying otherwise is simply displaying his complete ignorance of the subject matter. Hear this – the Jewish tithe was never money! The two verses you quoted were addressed to Jews under the law, the law was still in effect when Jesus spoke these words!! I would hope you would know this, but apparently you don’t. The law was still in effect for these folks until Jesus died.

    As regards the KJV, wouldn’t you think the translators would know if they were inspired or not, yet they said in the preface to the KJV that “A variety of translations is good, yea, necessary for the finding out of the sense of the scriptures.”

    Lastly, I consider you a christian brother, mixed-up? yes, having zeal without knowledge yes!! I am confronting you to your face, as your KJV says, like when Paul had to hammer Peter for being a hypocrite and trying to put folks back under law. I am encouraging you friend to wade out into Grace…..ahhh……there’s nothing like it…..be like Jesus and start concerning yourself with what’s in the cup and not what’s on the outside…..friend it will change your life!!!

  181. Richard :
    @Charles
    Matthew 23 certainly sounds insensitive and unsympathetic to the Pharisees and to Jerusalem, but it was true. Those our Lord would have loved on (I did not say loved. We know he loved them) refused Him and His truth.
    I may speak straight but not insensitively. I live daily with the result of sin.

    Well, done. You’ve effectively twisted things around.

    First, yes it SOUNDS insensitive and unsympathetic, but only to those who don’t understand the context (or to those who try to twist scripture to fit their views). No, Jesus was speaking the truth in love, he wasn’t being insensitive and unsympathetic. In fact he was speaking in defense of the people the pharisees were trying to deceive which is very sensitive and sympathetic to the needs of those who would be deceived by the pharisees. Jesus wasn’t being legalistic and black and white in his thinking.

    Second, this example in scripture serves to support my argument since you are the modern day pharisee and guess what Jesus calls them in Matthew 23??? “Hypocrites”

    Third, Jesus was speaking harshly to the pharisees NOT people who have been divorced (like you are doing). Again, see the story of the Woman at the well.

  182. @greg
    The redneck, uneducated comment was alittle harsh. It was not made directly to you, just a general reference to how uneducated many that stand in IFB pulpits are.

    I apologize, that didn’t really demonstrate “fruits of the Spirit,” however we do have biblical examples of harsh and strong criticism directed at wrong teaching, even from our Lord himself.

  183. You know, thank you for your words.

    Do I think IFB a cult? I would say yes, having just exited from an IFB church within the past 6 months in Southern California which was started 2-1/2 years ago. All I know is that I was SO confused when I left……it took me 6 months to find another church. You know, we can argure this or that and point fingers, but the bottom line is IFB does not have the “corner market” on salvation, my former pastor always spoke disparagingly of other christian organization……… and any other radio pastor that did not agree with his form of Christianity.

    I could go on and on about the dress code (which was required), where not to go, where to go, even the pastor’s wife helped pick out dresses for the women. Needless to say, there were alot of secrets in that church……Bottom line is, IFB’ers to me live a life of Bondage, they have a “form” of christianity but seem to deny the power thereof…….for me and my expierience they demand loyalty but rule by fear…….and without love. I heard very little about God’s Love for us or the scripture “greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world”. I’ve figured out the enemy can take many forms, and to me IFB is a cult, to me they are “wolves in sheep’s clothing”. But that is only my opinion. I left after the Pastor wanted me to come to him about understanding the KJB bible…….now, sorry folks but that is downright weird. I can go to God himself, God has provided many forms to help us understand his word……first and formost, He himself, His spirit, there are various written forms can help anyone……

    I’m just glad I am gone from there……..won’t be posting again, but glad I got outta there, am happily attending another church, this time, much different, a man I know is saved by grace and not works. He does not keep his salvation by works either…….I am understanding what being a Christian is all about.

  184. @Charles
    Charles,
    My only question is: How is it that you can agree with what I said and then attack me for what I said? I said it sounds- you agreed. I said it was true – You said truth in love. I said He loved – you said truth in love.

    How do you think I am a Pharisee?

  185. @greg
    I’ll try this again. I had a computer glich, and being my redneck high school education, I can’t figure out how to retrieve what I lost. LOL!!

    Concerning my attacks on you. They were not. I figured you did not have a problem with giving at least 10%, that you certainly do hate what God hates. (Concerning divorce, everybody I know that has been part of one whether, wife, husband, or child hates it. It is tearing apart of a family, no matter how messed up the family is. No one likes it & it is usually a last resort, except in the case of some fool chasing a new dream.)
    Concerning being ashamed to not know English, “I would be ashamed” not “You should be ashamed.” I was speaking in the first person singular about me.

    concerning titithing:
    1. I use the schoolmaster, and its instructions to teach the principle of giving. That is a NT practice.
    2. I believe under grace we should do more than the law requires. Jesus taught that principle in the “Sermon on the Mount.”
    3. I believe most Christians want to give much to the Lord and His work, and would give if they were not in finaincial bondage. (Many because of discontentment, others because of indebtedness, etc. Remember if you do not make any money you can’t titihe any money. For your information 1/10th of a dear would do if you got one while hunting. I’m for it, but most of us “prosper” in money, not produce, at least that is the case where I live.)
    4. Those who want to give more but are in bondage, I refer to Dave Ramsey (not a priority tither) or Larry Burkett’s books.
    5. I do not tithe, I give as I purposed in my heart. (Every year at tax time I find out that I exceeded the requirements of the law.)
    6. Giving is a proof of the sincerity of our love. (2 Corinthians 8). Little love is evidenced by little desire to give.

    Sometimes, I think people ought to learn to enjoy life more. Write a song, put it on youtube, or just go check out mine. You can laugh at some, rejoice in the Lord, or cry because you see how lacking in talent I am for being so educated. (I have more than a high school diploma even though my hit song “I won’t fail at lovin’ you” implies otherwise).

  186. Richard – I checked out your church from the link you provided, and you guys don’t seem bad at all. I’m assuming you are Richard the Associate Pastor, if so, I listened to one of your sermons today and it was very good. You aren’t even in the ballpark of crazy fundy as many of us have been exposed to here.

    Now to tithing. Tithing has nothing to do with NT giving. There is giving all over the NT, but it has (n o t h i n g) to do with the old testament tithe, again, nothing. You said in one of your above comments that it’s all God’s, or words to that effect, I completely agree. If one wants to say, well they gave 10% under the law, so we should be able to give well above that now under grace, and if God moves on you to do that, go for it, He will certainly bless! you in it.

    We no longer sacrifice animals, tithing went the same way as animal sacrifice, it is simply no more appllicable to the NT church. If we were still tithing, I would have to have someone to help me to herd my critters down to the storehouse and then have to find a Levitical Priest to accept my tithe.

    Tithing was for Jews under the law, and was never money.

  187. @greg
    Greg,
    There are always things that we won’t agree on completely. That is why I am an Independent Baptist. I have liberty. I am not one bit under law.
    Now, concerning those IFB people who are crazy fundy, they exist, but are actually the minority. Most of us are similar to SBC except we do not believe in strong fellowships and associations. The other thing is that most IFB churches are strong proponents of the KJV.
    We figure that we are to preach Jesus, a novel concept in this society of Christianity, where the extremists emphasize standards (there is needed teaching but not to the expense of Christ), and the modernists emphasize whatever it takes to get and keep people.
    If we are separated to Christ, we shall become separated from worldliness. The opposite of what your crazy fundies believe (in practice).
    The idea they have is go out, get them to profess Christ (no repentance from dead works, idols, or self reliance & no surrender to the Lord Jesus), get them baptized, and then spend the rest of your life trying to get them to submit to “Christian living.”
    Most will not submit, but may conform, because they did not get saved/born again. If they get saved the Holy Spirit will do the work without strong constraint from the pastor. This works in every area including giving.
    You do not have to teach tithing or giving to Christians. You show them that God expects them to give and He will guide them. My biggest problem with young Christians is that they want to give more than they can. That is until they get taught that God doesn’t want more than a measely 10%. Teaching tithing ruins good givers if you use it wrongly. The law is good used lawfully.

  188. Richard :
    @Charles
    Charles,
    My only question is: How is it that you can agree with what I said and then attack me for what I said? I said it sounds- you agreed. I said it was true – You said truth in love. I said He loved – you said truth in love.
    How do you think I am a Pharisee?

    “My ONLY question is:…” and then you ask two questions. This is why things are so confusing for you. You can’t even keep strait what YOU say let alone what someone else is saying.

    I didn’t agree with what you said and I didn’t attack you. You may want to re-read what I wrote. And if you seriously have to ask the first question then you’ve got either some manipulation tendencies or serious problems following the conversation. Personally I think it’s the former.

    To answer your second question: You’re exactly as the Bible describes a Pharisee, you focus on religion rather than relationship. The things you focus on have nothing to do with a relationship with Christ.

    (by the way: You’ve ignored all my questions about where your ideas are found in the Bible so I can only assume that you’re either making it up or you’re just regurgitating what’s been passed down to you from other IFBers.)

  189. I’m not sure how many “crazy fundy” IFB churches there are compared to those that aren’t, but a small journey through this site alone reveals hundreds if not thousands of “crazy fundy” IFB churches. Many of the stories of spiritual abuse are so similar that it can’t be considered an aberration.

    I suppose “how” to be separated is now the discussion. Many of us that came out of the IFB were taught that meant no dancing, drinking any alcoholic beverages, movies, theatre, smoking, modern clothing, even not to drive new vehicles, no music but hymns, no drums in church, no contemporary christian music and so on. Now some of the above mentioned things would be good to abstain from but most are preferences. In other words you may be convinced/convicted that you shouldn’t drink alcolholic beverages, the next person may see nothing wrong with wine with dinner or a beer on a hot day after mowing grass. (guess I’m about to find out if you believe your KJV when it says Jesus turned the water into wine…smiles)

  190. @Charles
    Charles,
    I am trying to figure out when I brought an issue into this correspondence. I have been responding to those who bring up issues, as Geg just did concerning separation. I try to answer questions, but only specific ones.
    As to our agreement, I guess if you did not agree with me, I agreed with you. I hope that makes you happier.
    As to being a Pharisee, I would like to know who (give one name) I have
    personally brought under bondage to live by my standards. I am the one on this page who speaks of Individual Soul Liberty. As you will notice about the Pharisees, they were not rebuked for their standards, but for bringing others into bondage.
    I certainly would like for you to go and listen to my classes. I attempt to preach Jesus. The last three Sundays: Christ: Our Assurance, Christ: Our Acceptance, Christ: Our Attraction. Next in the series is God’s Word: Our Authority. I plan to deal with Divine Inspiration, Divine Preservation, The Divine Operation. None of these will touch on what you call Phariseism, except, maybe, when I deal with that only word for word translations such as the KJV can be considered if we are discussing good translations.

  191. @greg
    Greg,
    I tried to respond to you, but had another computer glich. I think there are gremlins in my computer or else the devils have possessed it. (This was a try at humor). I do believe in possession but not of computers, only of unclean animals and people.
    I will try back later

  192. @greg
    Greg,
    There are plenty of them. There are enough “crazy fundy” IFB & other groups to make a fundamentalist sick to his stomach. I have preached in a few, and am usually not invited for a second time. (Some of what I have read makes me glad that independent means just that, independent.) Some don’t like my beard, others my boots, and even others don’t like my beliefs (especially concerning the doctrine of salvation).
    As to music standards in the church, Autonomy of the Church is my view. I am not a fan of drummers taking a forward position. I want a whole orchestra.
    Concerning dancing – If it is like David did, help yourself. If it is seductive swaying, or hands moving up and down bodies as in the nightclubs, you know my view. Anyway, I don’t shake, rattle, & roll, and I have no desire for men to take a second look at my wife because she can shake her groove thang.
    Concerning alcohol – I need to divide this in two thoughts: A general view & a view on “wine.”
    Generally, I yield to Proverbs 20:1(KJV). Don’t be deceived, it will get you. Anyways, I am of the Royal family so I yield to Proverbs 31:4-7. If we know Christ, we are not in the desperate conditions He describes. We have a place to cast our cares.
    As to wine, it is very difficult to discuss this issue unless we realize that “wine” can be fermented or unfermented. Genesis 49:4 has Judah washing in wine, the blood of grapes, right off the vine.
    Did Christ make fermented wine? I cannot say for sure one way or the other. We know it was freshly made, thus not having time for natural fermentation process. We know leaven is a picture of sin, so, Jesus surely would not use this unnatural process to defile the wine. We know that natural fermented wines do not taste as good as fresh unfermented wines (that is why they use sugar in fermentation, even if they do not use leaven). Wines are judged as good and bad by flavor not fermentation. (Ask a wine tester).
    All this being said, the picture is of a miracle. Give Jesus your old earthen vessel of dishonor, let Him fill it with the water of His Spirit by His Word, let yourself be poured out to others, and multiple choice 1)you are going to make people drunk, or 2) you are going to bring joy into a sad situation. We know the answer & we know He did not do anything to defile us.

  193. @greg
    Greg,
    I should not have used forms of “you” in my last point. It is often taken personally when I was only making a general statement. I am learning. Give me time and I won’t misspell or say anything that can be nit-picked. Sometimes, I think some of those on this site are looking for ways to attack the perceived enemy.
    Concerning buying new vehicles – The counsel given me was to buy new, when I was attempting to be a good steward, and frugal. (My pastor counseled me because the church was investing half the cost, and other churches were covered most of the rest.) I personally do not see where it is a pastor or church that has any place in our financial decisions unless they are the investor, and have never seen such unless asked. My view on when I am asked is to give pros & cons for wisdom purposes, then pray and let the people hear from God or make their own decision.

  194. Richard :
    Charles,
    I am trying to figure out when I brought an issue into this correspondence. I have been responding to those who bring up issues, as Geg just did concerning separation. I try to answer questions, but only specific ones.

    You bring an issue every time you post – that’s the point of a discussion is it not?

    Three of my questions were: “Where is that in the Bible?” to your assertions about divorce, tithing and other issues. I don’t know how to get more specific than that.

    If you are ignoring your opponent’s questions then it’s not much of a discussion, it’s just you telling your beliefs. Why not ask for more specifics then rather than just ignore the questions?

    I ask a question about things you say to try and find out more of your perspective. What I think is that you just don’t know the answers so you ignore them and use the excuse that they aren’t specific enough for you.

    Well I’m not going to ask my questions again. You can go to my posts to read them if it’s not too much trouble for you. You seem to have enough time for greg and Bob and others.

    For now, I’ll just assume that you don’t know.

  195. @Charles
    Charles,
    As you will find if you read my response to Bob, the Bible/NT view on divorce in the church. I have no view on the world’s morals or ethics.
    Concerning tithing – I have been working through that with Greg.
    concerning “opponents” – I thought we were on the same team, in the same family, unless of course you are trying to tell me you know not the Lord Jesus Christ.
    As to why I spend more time with Bob & Greg is because you think I am a “school girl” when I am not even addressing you. I was just having a light hearted time. You protest way too much about how I address things, and nit-pick when you do not need. I know I do not always articulate things as well as you think you do. I shall try to do better, but please do not be pharisaical and put me under such bondage to write like you think I should. When I wrote my first question, I only had one. I think and write at the same time, sometimes.
    I will give you more time in the future, and will answer any question you desire, if you can handle a school girlish answer. I think you just need to lighten up, enjoy the Lord and His people, even when you do not agree with them.

  196. Richard,
    I see you have your hands full here so I only want address one issue with you. You asked where immorality was a cause for divorce in the church age.
    In 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul addresses marriage issues, he refers several times to the Lord’s teaching. Paul recognized that Jesus had already given instructions on marriage that applied to the church. Read 1 Corinthians 7 and you can see where Paul mentions “the Lord’s instruction” and his own “new instruction”. Paul clearly assumed that Jesus’ teaching on marriage applied to those in the church age as well.
    Also, the word translated immorality, or fornication comes from the word “porneia”, so you might want to look it up so you know what Jesus really meant by what He said.

  197. @Richard

    Actually, no, we aren’t on the same team and after yet another harsh reply from you I’m more glad then ever that we’re not. If you are an example of how a Christian acts then I want no part of it. I’m just searching for the truth and now I know I won’t find it with you.

    As I was reading your most recent posts I was actually thinking that maybe the IFB isn’t so bad after all so I decided to ask questions, wading in the shallow water, so I could research for myself to find out if what you were saying is truth or just regurgitated IFB dogma. Now I know there’s just as much hurt and pain in shallow water as there is when I’m neck deep in religion.

    I’m desperately searching for the truth and was hoping that you’d help. I may not come across as the most kind or gentle person, but honestly I thought you’d be different. I’ll keep searching I guess.

  198. Richard – I smiled when you mentioned your beard, my pastor has a very long goatee/beard and he calls it his legalism detector!!

    On to wine. Having been an associate pastor for some time, I’m sure you realize that most of your folks sit and listen attentively on Sundays and maybe Wednesdays, and then go home and never crack the bible until the next Sunday or Wed. right? Well many of us “do” crack our bibles through the week, some of us crack them open every single day. Since retiring in 2009 I have had the opportunity/luxury/privelege to spend time in the precious word and investigate/study many issues that I wasn’t sure about, and let me say it is a blessing. God’s word changed my life and it will change anyone’s life.

    The two main subjects that helped lead me out of fundyland were 1) KJVonlyism and 2) the complete wrong teaching about tithing. I may not be an expert yet on these two subjects, but the foolishness that is taught in (most) fundy churches I can refute with my eyes closed, it is because of these wrong teachings and others that has driven people away from the blessed faith, and caused confusion among the brethern.

    I’m rambling, onto wine. First, to my knowledge juice doesn’t have any medicinal qualities. So when Paul tells Timothy to take alittle wine for his stomach’s sake, grape juice would not have done him any good. Even today some medicines contain alclohol. If one looks at Jesus’ first miracle at the wedding and simply reads the narrative, even in the KJV, it seems to me to be very clear that this wine was fermented wine, unless you contend there were differences in grape juice. The comparison of Jesus and John the Baptist in Luke 7:33-34 is quite telling. “For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.” ‘ I can make no sense of this comparison our Lord makes between himself and John if he is talking about grape juice, the narrative would make no sense, as my son would say, do you feel me? Now let’s have a look at some OT. Numbers 28:7 “the accompanying drink offering is to be a quarter of a hin of fermented drink with each lamb.” Deuteronomy 14:26-27 “Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice.” I actually came across this verse when I was studying about tithing. You see I started challenging folks to show me anywhere in the bible where a tithe was money. If you study this out you will see that these folks had along way to go and would have been impossible to get their “critters” to the storehouse, so they were to sell their “tithes/critters/agricultural products and then go to the city and take that money and then “exchange” that money for the agricultural products and sacrifice. Isaiah 25:6 “On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine- the best of meats an the finest of wines.” KJV says “on the lees” which I looked up today in Strong’s and it means aged wine. I’ll finish with Proverbs 31:6-7 “Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish: let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more.

    This is but a small sample, but I think clearly shows this “wine is grape juice” IFB mentality won’t stand up to scriptural scrutiny. Let me also say the teaching against drunkeness is clear in scripture, why even in the NT both deacons and pastors are allowed wine in moderation.

    I hope this takes, sometimes on longer posts it won’t take, so here goes.

  199. Richard,
    I see you have your hands full here but, I wanted to respond to one question you asked, “where in the N.T. economy is immorality a cause for divorce?”
    If you read 1 Corinthians 7, you will see that Paul refers to the “Lord’s teaching” to indicate that Jesus had given instruction previously that addressed marriage. Paul recognized that Jesus’ instruction regarding marriage was in affect and applied to the church.
    Regarding the word immorality or fornication, they are both used to translate the word “porneia”. So you have to look up the word porneia if you want to know what Jesus meant by what He said.

  200. Richard,
    I saw that you asked me “where in the N.T. economy is immorality a cause for divorce”?
    If you read 1 Corinthians 7, you will see in this chapter that Paul refers to the “Lord’s instruction”. This is a clear reference to Jesus’ previous instruction. Paul indicated that Jesus’ previous instruction was in affect and applied to the church.
    You have to base your beliefs on what the Bible actually says, not your conservative convictions.
    Regarding the word immorality or fornication, they are both used to translate the word “porneia”. So the important issue here is understanding what the word porneia means so we can understand what Jesus really meant by what He said.

  201. @bob

    Bob,
    I believe I am going by the strict expositional interpretation of the Bible.
    1Corinthians 7:10-11 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
    Paul is reiterating the Lord’s command, or at least he says he is. “Let not” means not to let this be. Then he says that if it does happen, even though it’s not supposed to, for her to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. He left no room for another person to be involved. The choices are reconciliation or remain unmarried. Paul thought that was the Lord’s command.
    Matthew 19:4-6 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

    Jesus says that they are one flesh and to let not man separate, or place room between them. Who grants divorces? Men do. God considers them one flesh, so unless you and I believe in ripping bodies apart, there is a problem.
    Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
    Moses recognized the heart of those wanting a divorce, but Jesus is quick to point out that the God who changes not had a different idea. Notice Jesus did not say, “God … suffered you to put away your wives”
    Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
    Jesus seems to give an out here, “except for fornication.” What does He mean? I thought you would never ask. The best example of what the Lord is talking about is right here in the book of Matthew, Joseph & Mary.
    Matthew 1:18-19 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
    Notice: Joseph & Mary were espoused, no consummation. Joseph had choices according to the law: public stoning, a writing of divorcement, or forbearance. They were not, as our society sees, married. Why a divorcement? Because this was a serious matter, when a woman was unfaithful to “her husband” during the betrothal period.
    My question for you is, why would the disciples think it not good to marry if they thought Jesus was speaking of general immorality? I believe they realized the severity of the commitment, and that God’s people have no way out after consummation.

  202. @greg
    Greg
    Well I figured you would say that wine was always alcoholic in the Bible, even though it is defined clearly as the blood of grapes in Genesis 49. That is where Judah washed his garments in wine right off the vine.
    As to grape juice being referred to as wine, I studied more than just my Bible to find out that this was common terminology in the past. Also, I am sending some Doctor’s statement on health even though I have no problem with taking drugs for medical purposes. (Medical marijuana, codine, morphine, Nyquil, etc.) Secular studies help sometimes, and internet is easy access to information.
    The story of Welch’s began in 1869 in Vineland, New Jersey – when physician and dentist Thomas Bramwell Welch and his son Charles processed the first bottles of “unfermented wine” to use during their church’s communion service.
    Dr. Dean Ornish I’m sure you’ve heard that red wine may be good for your heart. This may be true, but you can receive essentially the same benefits from drinking unfermented wine, i.e., grape juice. Substances such as flavonoids in grapes help dilate your arteries and keep them flexible, improve blood flow, and reduce the likelihood of blood clots. These substances also help keep cholesterol in your bloodstream from ending up in your arteries.
    Antioxidants in grape juice appear to linger in your body longer than those in wine. At the University of California, Davis, researchers took a 1996 cabernet sauvignon, removed all the alcohol, and asked volunteers to alternate between drinking the nonalcoholic wine one day and one with
    alcohol on the next day. They found that antioxidants remained in the blood 25 percent longer after volunteers drank the nonalcoholic wine than the cabernet with alcohol. Alcohol may hasten the breakdown of antioxidants in your blood.
    Recently, researchers at Harvard Medical School and the National Institute on Aging reported that resveratrol, a natural substance found in grapes and red wine, helped reduce the harmful effects of a high-calorie diet in mice and significantly extended their life span. However, the amounts of resveratrol that they gave to these mice were equivalent to drinking 750 to 1,500 bottles of red wine a day.
    If you really want to confuse the fundys, ask them how much wine a deacon can drink, and is it alright for a bishop to drink grape juice. Context is everything.
    Jesus was accused of lots of untruths, just like John. I wonder why He did not say, “drinking wine” about Himself, when in Luke’s gospel wine is mentioned in the verse about John. We know Christ was not a winebibber or gluttonous being they are sin. His point in the whole was come and see the truth. “Wisdom is justified of all her children.”
    Well, I got home late, but wanted to respond. I hope I did not ramble, I am half asleep.

  203. Richard – I have been able to follow your line of reasoning in all of your posts until this one. I’m really not trying to be sarcastic, but I never said that “wine was always alcoholic in the bible.” Also, I have never heard anyone anywhere contend that wine doesn’t come from grapes. But notice in Gen 49:12 what this “blood of grapes” does to his eyes “His eyes shall be red with wine” I don’t drink alot of grape juice but when I do, it doesn’t make my eyes red!!

    You asked why did Jesus not say “drinking wine” about Himself. We can use this type of reasoning to prove any point at all in the scripture. I would much rather focus on what He “did” say. But hypothetically speaking, to answer your question, the apostles were with him when He turned the water into wine at Cana, He didn’t need to tell them. I do find it hard to believe that you would try to obscure this passage to win this little argument. Should we also wonder why Jesus didn’t say eating bread? Cmon Richard let’s keep this thing real! The passage is dealing with John’s non-eating and drinking and comparing it to Jesus’ eating and drinking. I have heard one of your sermons, you are a smart guy, don’t resort to this pettiness. It’s fine if we disagree about wine, but please don’t resort to this type of argumentation.

  204. continuing:
    For clairification purposes I want to put up the 2 verses in question. Luke 7:33-34 KJV “For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine: and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking: and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!”

    Speaking of verses, your response was nearly bereft of scriptures. I laid down quite a few verses to support my opinion, but you didn’t. I try to always go by the bible, while the story about Welch’s grape juice is interesting, and may have a place in the discussion, I am vastly more concerned about what thus saith the Lord, to get KJVy on you….smiles!

    So how bout some scriptures.

    1 Timothy 3:3 KJV/this is regarding behaviours that a bishop should possess “Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre: but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;”……..I don’t use the KJV much anymore but it appears to me that a “bishop” is allowed to have at least “some” wine. Now I must believe it is speaking of alcoholic wine, I never heard of a prohibition against drinking grape juice anywhere in the scripture. NIV says “not given to drunkeness.”

    1 Timothy 3:8 KJV/regarding deacons……..”Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre:” ……again, I don’t use the KJV much anymore but it appears to me that the deacon may have alittle more leeway with his consumption of fermented wine than does the bishop……..NIV says “not indulging in much wine”

    If you want to continue please point to scripture to support your argument. It’s fine if you don’t want to continue, also fine if you disagree, this is not something to break fellowship over.

  205. @greg
    Greg,
    1st Timothy reference to the Bishop not given to and the Deacon not given to much wine, you are correct in the application of this as alcoholic. The implication though is the bishop is not to partake whereas the deacon can partake of a little (maybe like a drink at dinner). Most “fundys” don’t like it, but that’s the KJV for you. Most people do not believe the Bible for what it says, even when there is no argument to be made.

  206. @greg

    Greg,
    I believe I pointed out the other day what I believe about the marriage feast at Cana. The wine was “good,” not necessarily fermented. To dogmatically hold a position of “fermentation” seems very IFBy, only to the opposite side.
    I also stated the other day why I tend to lean toward unfermented at the marriage feast.
    I am not confident that Jesus ever drank anything but “New” wine, which means it was not processed for fermentation, neither had time for much natural fermentation. The only place that anyone could infer different is if they take the words of those who hated Him, calling Him a winebibber.
    Matthew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
    Proverb 23:20 Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh:
    He said that the proof of who’s what is in the pudding, or to be more Scriptural, “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” “Wisdom is justified of her children.”

    I do take a strong stand against alcohol, not necessarily whether you have one beer or a glass of wine for supper (I meant with supper), but alcohol in general. God gives so many admonitions against it, and what it can do, that I must, if rightly dividing the word of truth, preach warning against its dangers and deception. I must do such due to what it caused to Noah& Lot in Genesis, and to the children of Israel in Exodus 32. I could go on with the list of those who met the tragedy of the damnable drinking deception, and I could list so many sins that are caused that start with the bottle, but I find it sufficient to remind us of one terrible disaster that God affiliates with alcohol in Habakuk.
    Habakuk 2:15-16a Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness! Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered:

    Let us move on to something more edifying, such as the Lordship of Jesus Christ. He stirs me up a whole lot more in a positive way than wine ever could. Amen! Glory! Praisaluia!

  207. @greg
    Greg,
    I must say the NIV is very inconsistent, at least in the case of the bishop & deacon on the wine thing. “Paroinos” is a compound word “Par” = given to + “oinos” translated wine in the KJV (I assume they translate it drunkeness in the NIV). The word “oinos” seems to be translated wine in both the KJV and NIV when concerning a deacon. Proper translation, if they really believed that “paroinos” meant what they claim, would be that the deacon is not to be given to much drunkeness. That certainly would have caused a problem when consistently, whether wine is O K or not, Jesus & the whole Bible is against drunkeness.

    I just thought that was interesting. I am certainly not trying to start a debate on who has the best Bible.

  208. Richard – I see the KJV’s rendering as the Bishop being allowed some latitude regarding imbibing alcoholic wine.

    Let me very clear as is the bible. Drunkeness is wrong and sinful, (all) translations are clear about that, as the verses you cited. Clearly, I believe, the bible, old and NT allow for some consumption of alcolholic wine, even “strong drink” that I cited in the OT.

    I look at wine as something that is a gift to man that we then abuse. Sex is another gift that man abuses. All sorts of medicines that God has allowed to aid in our suffering are abused, oxycontin comes to mind. We abuse food (I’ve not heard alot of fundy sermons about that) We are a sinful people, but praise God, He remembers our form that we are but dust.

    Sensible wine/alcohol consumption? yes……….Drunkeness…… absolutely not, I see no way to rightly divide the word of truth and say otherwise.

  209. @greg
    Greg,
    I preach against gluttony. I am very clear to point out that being overweight does not mean that a person overeats. Matter of fact, I have to stay on a real strict diet or I will jump up in weight due to my slow metabolism and lack of exercise.
    I like drugs when I am in pain, and do not argue with medical issues. I do preach against misuse of all drugs including alcohol. I preach more about alcohol abuse than food because God does. I normally work my way through a Book. Therefore, I hit on what it hits on for my main focus. I might chase a rabbit here or there, but not because I see a person I want to preach at like some preachers I have heard. (I would have said fundy preacher except for the preacher who came to mind is not.)
    I still yield to Proverbs 31 and the fact that I am part of the Royal Family, a king, and son of the King eternal (a prince), according to the Bible and I certainly don’t want to take a chance of forgetting the law or perverting the judgment of any of the afflicted. I am very careful to allow the brethren liberty, but am also bold enough to let them know that there is only one way to be confident you never get drunk with alcohol. It is the same rule I use concerning how a girl can keep from becoming with child. Abstain and you have no worries, and you also won’t offend those weaker brethren in the area of alcohol.
    Now, on to better things. What do you believe concerning salvation and the Lord Jesus?

  210. Isn’t it a blessing that Christ bare all our griefs, and carried our sorrows, so that when IFBers, as wicked as we are, hurt people through our Pharisaical views, we have a place to run to and cast our cares? I praise Him for being the God of all comfort and that we can boldly run to His throne of grace to obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

    Since finding this site, what I have noticed is, not that there are Pharisees that claim the name IFB, but that there are so many precious sheep out there who are so hurt by idiotic Christians in any denomination. I have noticed the problem though is not usually in the issues or convictions, but in the arrogance with which people forget to allow individual soul liberty in cases of liberty. Doctrine is a totally different issue.

    Another thing I noticed is that a lot of Christians bring themselves into bondage when they are at liberty. I call it peer pressure, in differentiation from pulpit pressure.

    For example, I did not have a TV for years. I have a friend who asked for my reasoning, so I explained the dangers of time theft & mind theft. He chose to rid himself of such dangers. Another friend, seeing that two men he admired were TVless, removed his TV, and started down the road of a real spiritual and spousal battle. Finally, after two years of going back & forth within himself & with his wife, he found out that my reason for getting rid of my TV had no spiritual significance, but was based on wanting to spend more quality time with my wife when I was home.

    On another occasion, I had a woman ask me why my wife was not allowed to read certain books, (they in my view, and in my wife’s also have in appropriate scenes), that she wanted to give to my beloved. My answer was for her to talk to her husband about his views on the books. If he wondered where my family stood, he was more than welcome to approach me. She asked her husband, he asked me. I asked him if he had ever read these books, to which he said, “No.” Therefore, I suggested he read one, to which he did, and came to the same conclusion as my family.

    On one more occasion, a friend who had known my wife for years, and had never seen her in anything but long dresses or skirts. We were asked about why she dressed such, to which I answered, “That is what she owns.” I was asked about my convictions on the issue, to which my response was, “We don’t have an issue, she picks out her own clothing, and that is what she wears.” (My daughter’s clothing is picked out by her mother and me, & she wears what we choose whether she likes it or not. Same goes with what she eats, reads, & watches. Liberals call it tyrannical, I call it parenting. I choose for my son, also). They ask her if she’s going to wear a dress to the Galveston coast. I want to ask, “What business is that of yours? Why not? Is there something wrong with wearing a dress?”

    My point is, I believe in liberty. I am not a moralist. You can look over my 15+ years of preaching notes, and where available listen to my tapes & CDs, never finding a message on standards (though there are slight mentions in some). The focus of most Baptist preachers, IFB included, is Jesus.

    Sometimes, I believe, the questions are like asking, “Where did Cain get his wife?” to which my first response is, depending on discerning sincerity, “Why are you so worried about someone else’s wife. Have you not one of your own? He got his from his mother in law.” They usually do not want an answer, they want to argue.

  211. I have to say you are clumping all IFB’s in the same category. I am and have been an IFBer for all my life now 36, I don’t know what crazy IFB churches you are referring too but every one I have been a member of are nothing like the one’s in any of your post.
    Please DO NOT CLUMP all in one category.
    Just wanted to leave my peace. Thank You!

  212. @Melinda
    Melinda,
    That is a point that many of the readers on this site are, or are becoming aware of. Many of these readers have been hurt by people, and pastors especially, who are IFB.

    Most IFB churches do not fit into the extreme, but I must say we can all learn how not to behave if we listen to those who have been hurt.

    I will challenge you to stay in your Bible & don’t compromise convictions. We must not only hold to our convictions, but know why we have them, and where we can find them in the Scriptures. Then I challenge you to, if you do not already practice this, love people even when they do not see everything the same as you. Remember, we have liberty.

    I certainly appreciate your post, and your concern for the good name of your IFB church.

  213. Richard – It is appearing more and more that your church is not representative of the spiritually abusive churches that are spoken about here. First off, you mentioned Jesus. You could set for months in my old church and hear nothing about Jesus, except to tag it on the end of a prayer.

    (before I forget, abstaining from premarital sex is absolutely taught in the scripture, abstaining from alcoholic drinks is not, in fact as I have pointed out by the scriptures themselves, it’s often recommended)

    Have to call foul when you say “it’s not usually in the issues or convictions” that is precisely where the problem is, of course, so is arrogance. My old pastor preached against women in slacks, alcohol consumption, hair length, contemporary christian music, all sorts of things he may personally been convicted of but had little to no scriptural support. So this is “explicitily” the problem.

    I can’t speak to anyone else that comments here, but in me, you will find a man that looks to the Lord and His word for guidance. I place no sinful men on the level of God and His Word including any and all pastors. For instance, I have great respect for the ministry of Charles Stanley and have some of his books, recently I was reading some of his material, and read his opinions on tithing, as wonderful a teacher as he is, and usually so dead-on in his teaching, he couldn’t have been more wrong on the issue of tithing. It doesn’t make him a bad man, just a fallible one.

  214. @greg

    Greg,
    First, I want to be very clear, if you ever listen to me, I don’t talk about Jesus, I speak of the Lord Jesus or the Lord Jesus Christ. I have real issues with Baptists who forget the Lordship of the one who God has made both Lord & Christ. I personally believe this lack of focusing on who Christ is at the point of “salvation” is why Baptists and many others have to brow beat their converts into obedience to church rules, or, on the other side do not expect any “separation.”
    As to abstaining, I did not deal with when to abstain in my post. I dealt with the only sure fire method of protection was to abstain. The only sure method of protection from alcohol’s deception as Proverbs 20:1 deals with, or with sexuality and conception, is to abstain.
    As to each of the issues you mentioned, I have no idea how it was preached, but I certainly understand why.
    Alcohol consumption needs to be warned against, due to how easily one can cross the line into slight drunkenness. I did not say it should be condemned.
    Hair length is based upon nature, and in Bible context is a red-flag of rebellion.
    (1Corinthians 11:14,16) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? … But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
    Bob Seger in his song “Turn the Page” speaks of “You walk into a restaurant, strung out from the road. You feel the eyes upon you as your shaking off the cold.” In the same verse he says, “Sometimes you can hear them talk, many times you can’t. It’s the same old cliché, is that a woman or a man.” That was not an IFB restaurant.
    Charlie Daniels said, “People say I’m no good and crazy as a loon, ‘cause I get stoned in the morning, I get drunk in the afternoon. Kinda like my old blue tick hound, I like to lay around in the shade. I ain’t got no money, but I sure got it made. I ain’t asking nobody for nothing if I can’t get it on my own. If you don’t like the way I’m Livin’, just leave this long haired country boy alone.”
    I know I am not quoting Scripture. I am using the same rule Paul the apostle used in Titus, let them speak for themselves. (Titus 1:12) “One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, …” Even the natural men see long hair as an issue.
    Paul lets it be made very clear that long hair is not an issue of hair, but usually of the heart. (Proverb 13:10a) “Only by pride cometh contention.” If a man’s hair is an issue in a local assembly, he should willfully cut his hair instead of bowing up and saying, “What place have you telling me to cut my hair?” I am not saying it is not a reasonable question, but the attitude is usually wrong.
    If the question is asked, the answer is very simple. “I have no doctrinal place, just a practical place. I am attempting to help you not be a stumbling block in society and in the church.”
    Concerning women in slacks: I don’t preach against slacks, I preach against slackers.
    Dress standards is another sensitive issue based upon individual’s pride, but wearing slacks is a whole different matter. It could havebeen considered cross dressing back in the 1950s & 60s before women belittled themselves to be equal with men. A girl born in the 60s or more recent would not think it rebellious to wear slacks or jeans because it was what they were raised in. Tight clothing is still immodest.
    CCM: Some is good, some is evil. I have not met those who are so narrow as to not allow me to sing my youtube hit “Grace Sufficient” in their churches based upon it being contemporary. It is contemporary, written in 2011.
    Most people lump all music in categories. When I was a heavy rocker, I did not like the country beat. I knew people who did not like rock. My hit song “I won’t fail at lovin’ you” rjhivner on youtube will never hit the rock charts.
    Where to draw the line, and one must be drawn, on whether the music honors God as Christian or not is actually very simple.
    Two verses:
    Psalm 40:3 And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD.
    Ephesians 5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
    Two verses give us two rules.
    1)Do the lyrics get our eyes on Jesus (this can be a broad scope because an indirect look is still a look)?
    “even praise unto our God” “ to the Lord”
    2)Can the song be sung without instrumentation? I did not say the song must be sung without instrumentation. “ melody in your heart” “a new song in my mouth”

    The problem with most “church members” in our society, is not any of these above noted issues, but that we are a proud self-willed people who are not willing to give up self to the Sovereign.
    The problem with most “church leaders” is that they are the same as doctors, always treating symptoms, and never getting to the heart of the issue.

  215. Richard – I want to focus on “hair length.” I guess one of the first questions even an unchurched person would ask would be. How long is long? We are not given that answer in the scriptures.

    The passage of scripture that is discussing hair (1 Corinthians 11:1-16) is actually about “authority” in the church and the roles of men and women. So it’s really not at all about men running out to get crew cuts, to make sure we are pleasing to God. There actually was quite a controversey about this in the Corinthian church that Paul is specifically addressing. (context, context, context)

    There were no specific Jewish laws regarding how long a man’s hair should be, but certainly it was kept much shorter than Jewish women’s. Jesus’ hair length would have been whatever was culturally appropriate. This subject (hair length) can’t be fully understood unless one considers the cultural implications. For instance Jesus robes, in fact all the Apostles for that matter may have been considered “feminine” in our culture. Just look at all the jokes about men in Scottish kilts, when someone of Scottish descent wishes to be married in one in this country. So absolutely one must consider the cultural underpinnings when attempting to “rightly divide the word of truth.”

  216. continuing…
    Paul’s point here is that a man’s hair should look masculine, the woman’s hair should look feminine. Women naturally have longer hair than men and are not nearly as prone to going bald or very thin as we men are.

    Just as we are told in the OT for men not to where that “which pertaineth to a woman” the entire idea is for men to be men and women, women. God is not into unisex.

    This is yet another passage that is “proof-texted” by simple, naive preachers to try to get folks to follow “their” rules to prove their righteousness. Living for Christ isn’t about following rules. (not saying you are doing this, btw)

    Charlie Daniels is a wonderful christian man, and has changed the words to “Long Haired Country Boy” Take a visit to his site and have a look.

    There is considerably more to this passage. I didn’t go into veils and so forth that women would wear, but I hope I’ve given enough for folks to understand that men should look like men and women, women and that one must absolutely consider the culture when looking at many topics like this.

    Don’t know about you but I haven’t “greeted any men with a Holy kiss” lately, but we are told to do it in the scripture.

  217. continuing…
    I’ll go ahead very briefly and touch on veils. Prostitues would often “not’ wear a head covering demonstrating their “availability” of course “immodest” women would also sometimes go w/out the veil. Even today married Jewish women wear veils. Of course Muslim women are considered “loose” if they don’t wear their veils.

    So it goes w/out saying that for a man to wear a veil it would be dishonoring.

    Again culture/context!

  218. @greg

    I certainly have not said one thing in contrast to what I read in your post. I actually believe I tried to get the idea beyond each of the issues to the heart of the matter. That is why I quoted such fathers of the faith as Bob Seger and Charlie Daniels as to show that God was right once again. He agrees with them. (1Corinthians 11:14) “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?”
    As to whether Charlie Daniels is a Christian, I do not see that as relevant. He wrote the song the best I can remember. I liked it back in the day, but that was my attitude. The song promoted the attitude that went along with my crowd.

    How long is long? is not a realistic question for most people. The reason it is asked by many is to stir up strife. It is like asking about old what’s his names wife. If a person is really concerned, which some are, I say “look around, see what is accepted by the culture, or ask a beautician or barber for a cut that would be short but stylish.” If they insist for a more clear answer, I tell them to use me for an example. I am the poster child for proper hair-dos.

    The whole focus of 1st Corinthians is to get the heart of a carnal church focused on the Lordship of Christ, the crucified life. It is what is needed in a majority of the churches today, except for the IFB. They need Galatians.

  219. @greg
    Greg,
    I forgot you don’t know about my hair style, unless you checked us out on youtube.

  220. @greg
    As to head coverings for women, I have had to deal with that issue.

    I tell the husbands that there is great liberty, if his wife wants to wear it, help yourselves. Then I ask for an explanation on why it is the clear teaching of 1st Corinthians. Usually, like most people who deal with the outward appearance, they get all confused when questioned about each and every detail addressed.

    If they seem to be contentious and try to act super spiritual even after our discussions on the matter. I get fundamental. I tell them that it is a head covering, not a hair covering, and that what they are doing is compromise.

  221. Richard – You said, “How long is long? Is not a realistic question for most people. The reason it is asked by many is to stir up strife.”

    I would submit that the reason that’s its even spoken about at all is mostly because of simple, uneducated, legalistic pastors that thunder this legalistic silliness from their raised pulpits of authority attempting to get folks to follow “their” rules so that they can be justified in his eyes. I can promise you Jesus is not greeting folks at the door checking haircuts!

    Love what our Precious Saviour said to that legalistic bunch of teachers and Phraisees and (IFB Pastors, and all others that think that rule-following is part of His plan in Matthew 23: 4-5) “…They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. Everything they do is done for men to see:….” I gotta put some more of this narrative down. He tells them in v-8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one master and you are all brothers.” v-10 “nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ. Wow, thank you Lord, if some of these haughty teachers in the IFB could just get ahold of this message! (me, too!….smiles)

  222. continuing….
    You said in an earlier comment that “Hair length is a red flag of rebellion” Where did you get that from, certainly not from the scriptures, or if you did, I certainly don’t know where to find it. I want to clarify again. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is about authority in the church it is not teaching about “hair” and how long we should keep our hair, it’s about men being men and women being women. One cannot take his KJV in hand and go out and start judging peoples testimonies or recomending that someone cut their hair because its too long, if you have a man coming to church with a pretty pink bow in his hair, this could be one your texts to discuss with him.

    As for Charlie Daniels being a Christian. Me and Charlie, God and the heavenly angels think its relevant. I may not have agreed with all of Long Haired Country Boy, but I certainly agree with part of the second verse.

    Jesus walked on the water
    And I know that its true:
    Sometimes I think that Preacher man
    Ought to do alittle walkin too.

    Amen to that brother Charlie.

  223. @greg
    Greg,
    I certainly am glad Charlie Daniels has professed Christ, but that is still not relevant to the discussion at hand. I keep forgetting that there is an inability to understand context on your part, so you want to take Mr. Daniels outside of the context of the song he wrote, to what he has done now. His Christianity is irrelevenat when dealing with his quote from the 1970s, when he wrote the second verse to mock Christianity and that dear SBC, AoG, or maybe Methodist preacher who preached against the rebellion of the “Long Haired Country Boy.” (I left the IFB out because the movement that identifies as IFB was not a dominating force in central Tennessee at the time, though there could have been one there.)
    As to long hair on a man being a “red flag of rebellion,” I yield to nature as the Holy Ghost did. As to clarifying this issue. I need not, you do it for me. “it’s about men being men and women being women.” “1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is about authority in the church”
    If a man is contentious against nature’s dictates, the issue is “pride.” Pride is why preachers are dictators when God clearly teaches against it, and pride is why a man refuses to submit to the nature’s rules.
    A subject to Christ is willing to die to selfish whims in order to have a good testimony.
    Back to “long hair” for one moment, though I believe it is easier for some people to discuss issues than our precious Lord Jesus. Nature has not changed on this issue. The question is “Is long hair really long hair when it is shorter than what is expected on women, or is not styled in effiminate fashions?” Of course some would consider it so, but nature does not.
    Also, I know that one of the hardest things for this “long haired country boy” to do was the hair cut I received when joining the US Navy. My beautiful hair was my glory, and I was not feminine in my behavior, but I, my friends, my former teachers, my coaches, and our local police knew I was a rebel against society. This was a commonly considered observation with those of us who were of the “I’m my own person, nobody’s going to tell me what to do crowd.”
    Therefore I have you, nature, the Bible (backing up the God who created nature), the rock-n-roll prophets, my life experience, and society saying that hair is a distinguisher between men and women. How much clearer can it get?
    A man knows when he has long hair, and the IFB does not have to tell him.

  224. @greg
    Greg,
    Is it possible to move on to something different. I guess this is a once in a year conversation, that normally lasts moments.
    The last time I had a discussion about hair was a woman asked me if I thought her hair was a bad testimony because it was short. I looked at her and said, “Sis, it does not look like any man’s style hair-do, don’t worry about it unless God is dealing with you.” Before that (almost 2 years ago) a young preacher friend of mine, who had been pastoring maybe two years asked what he should do about a man who had been in the church since before he came that wanted to teach. The man had hair down to the middle of his back, and the pastor felt like it was out of rebellion. I said, “Ask him to get a hair cut, and watch how he reacts. If he says, ‘Yes sir, OK” there is no problem. If he bows up, the problem is not the hair, but the rebellious prideful heart. If he asks sincerely ‘Why?’ explain your view concerning his hair and the testimony you believe it promotes. If he wants to teach, he will understand and get his hair trimmed some, even if he doesn’t see eye to eye on this issue.
    The problem is not the hair, but the heart. Out ward symptoms are usually the sign of inward situations.

  225. Richard – I’m about ready to move on as well, but it’s hard. We want to agree, yet I can see you still don’t quite get my point and it’s fairly significant, we are sort of talking past each other.

    First, one of the main things I want to do is maintain context at all times, and I would submit that it is you that is not maintaining context.

    On to Charlie. I like and support the whole 2nd verse of LHCB. He may have well have written it with a rebellious heart, but he was certainly pointing out problems/truth within churches, and what was that? Mostly “legalism” but also selfishness/greediness of “filthy lucre.” Btw, I don’t condemn all rock and roll. I condemn music if it supports things that are against God. (imagine if upon arrival in heaven, brother Charlie is sitting in a corner with his acoustic singing the 2nd verse of LHCB) Heaven is not necessarily gonna be like preachers think its gonna be, Heaven is gonna be like God wants it to be. “But Lord didn’t we do many great things in your name? Now imagine these hypocrites looking into the Precious Saviour’s face and saying this, of course Jesus says, depart from me I never even knew you”

  226. continuing
    My last post didn’t post here, maybe Steve can move it. I probably messed up, but too lazy to retype, but anyhoo, you can click on my name there on the right and see the first part of my response.

    Ok, one more time 1 Corinthians 11 shorthand. No one can use this chapter to preach about the length of men’s hair. This chapter is not about that. This chapter is about authority. A side issue here is for men to act like and be like men and for women to do likewise. If a foolish “bishop’ gets up in front of a congregation and pounds the pulpit and makes a fool of himself about how men wearing long hair have rebellious hearts, he can proof-text it with 1 Corinthians 11. He’s done nothing but make himself feel great and be prideful that he has played the part of Holy Spirit (not ghost, ghosts are spirts of deceased people) Preach the Word friend, allow the Holy Spirit to work on folks hearts, let’s concern ourselves more with the inside of that cup, don’t you think this is what the Saviour would want?

    Onto something else, you said something rather peculiar earlier about the “Lordship of Jesus Christ” and about how you don’t care for folks just saying Jesus, but instead want them to say “Lord Jesus” instead, that’s sounds like that could lead to some interesting discussion, if you care to elaborate on that, or anything else.

  227. @greg
    Greg,
    I believe I got your point very clear, and have attempted to point out that we are very close to agreement, especially on 1st Corinthians 11.
    I like how Jesus dealt with receiving eternal life. He demanded a willingness to leave a past life to “follow me.” The modern day crowd forget that in their “soul-winning” efforts.
    No repentance, no remission, no regeneration. I believe we have forgotten this truth in modern Christianity. Some call it “Lordship salvation.” I call it Bible salvation. A.W.Tozer & I call these modern salvation methods of believe on Jesus as your Savior, leaving out the “Lord” part, heresy.
    There is no salvation without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Lord is a term of authority. Jesus is a name of Salvation. Christ is the acknowledgment of Deity.
    It is either “receive him” as who he is or not at all.
    I had to fix my rushed spelling.

  228. Richard – Who are these “modern day crowds” you spoke about. I gotta be honest, that sounds real “fundy.” If they are misled surely we need to help them as Jesus would.

    I submit that someone must “hear” the gospel, then the Holy Spirit must draw them, at that point I believe that they have a decision to make to either accept or reject the Holy Spirit’s drawing. We haven’t spoken about whether you are calvinistic or not, but you can certainly see that I am not, by this statement. I’m more than happy to provide mountains of scripture to demonstrate folks “rejecting” the Holy Spirit’s drawing if you feel otherwise.

    Romans 5:1 “Therefore having been justified by faith…” No kind of works involved, except God’s, in justifying us. And this of course is by grace through faith (Eph 2) Sooooo, I would submit that many get saved in the above listed way and don’t even understand the concept of “Lordship salvation” they just know they heard the gospel (the gospel is the power of God unto salvation -to whom?- to all that believe!!) Hopefully they will be in a situation where they can “grow up” in their faith, and “learn” how to be a faithful,solid christians. I think of the thief on the cross, I really don’t believe he knew much about God, and probably didn’t know a thing about theology, ahhh, but he trusted on the Saviour!!! It’s from this thief’s salvation experience that I caution folks about what words you try to make sinners say when calling on the Lord for salvation, about 9 words did it for this thief, and he didn’t say or ask anything about forgiveness. “Lord remember me when you come in your kingdom.” Man that’s good stuff!!

    Don’t care at all about spelling. Also checked out a couple of your singing vids, pretty good! Since we’re sharing, my son put us on youtube playing a little blues number, and someone posted some of my bluegrass bands performances on their w/out our permission, course I don’t care, have a look if you want. “tsettleguitar” both are from a couple years ago, I’ve lost over 100 pounds since then.

  229. @greg
    Greg,
    You and I are more in agreement than you probably ever thought. Forgiveness is a supernatural work and needs not to be asked for at salvation. The unregenerate, under the convicting power of the Holy Ghost desires to be something totally different, alive. He does not desire to be the same old person just forgiven.
    The account of the cross has a two-fold picture. One being the substitutionary Saviour in Christ’s death for Barabbas (the son of the fathers). The other being the ability to access salvation for a repentant sinner.
    Notice the thief’s reaction to the drawing of the Holy Ghost. “Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.” There was a recognition of his deserve, his depravity, & his damnation. He recognized Christ’s purity, position, and power. “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” Christ’s purity “hath done nothing amiss.” Christ’s position – “Lord.” Christ’s power – resurrection from death is implied in the confidence that Christ was going to rule a kingdom.
    As to whom the “the modern crowds” are, some of them are IFB. Spurgeon (one of my favorite Calvinists), Tozer (one of my favorite non-Baptist preachers), and many others, including some of the “big name” teachers of today like John McArthur, see the trend of what is called “easy believism,” or as I put it, salvation without surrender.
    The focus of this damnable heresy is a “plan of salvation,” instead of the Person & purpose of salvation. The issue to them is Hell, a by-product. The issue to God is sin. They say things like, “Believe on Jesus as your Saviour,” when God always emphasizes, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.”
    Salvation is absolute surrender to the sovereign Saviour. It is my allowing Him to have me. I like the picture God gives of us as a bride, (Isaiah 61:10; S.o.S.; Ephesians 5). I think of the bride’s vows, to love, cherish, obey, for better or worse, good times and bad, richer or poorer, forsaking all others, are exactly what he expects of His precious ones. That is why He gives us His Spirit to make us what we ought to be
    If a person is going to be Christ’s disciple, he or she must be willing to deny self, take up their cross (willing to die to self & sin), and follow Him. (Matthew 16). Before any one says that I am using a discipleship verse for a salvation verse, Salvation is entry level discipleship.
    This modern salvation of receiving Him as Saviour is why there is less holy living, and oppressive separation tactics, or on the other side, no expectation of purity on the part of so-called Christians.

  230. @greg
    Greg,
    I am a lot of things, including an Independent Fundamentalistic Baptistic Christian, but I am not a Calvanist.
    I do believe in the Total Deadness of man’s spirit, and the depravity of man’s flesh.
    I do believe in Conditional Election. The conditions is repentance.
    I believe in limited atonement. Limited by unbelief.
    I believe in resistable grace.
    I believe in the Preservation of the saints, and the punishment of the ain’ts.

  231. @greg
    Greg,
    I enjoyed you and your son playing the blues.

  232. Richard – A pretty good exegesis on the crucifiction, I just have to wonder if the thief himself went through that entire progression in his mind, as opposed to just responding to the pull of the Holy Spirit.

    I suppose if we differ, it is this, I simply don’t think that a totally unchurched person can be “aware” of “taking up the cross” “denying self” “absolute surrender to a Sovereign Saviour” in fact, I would submit that if one were to throw all of these biblical concepts at an unsaved person, this could confuse the person. I still maintain that the person responds to the Holy Spirit’s drawing, and then “learns” more about all the other concepts as they “grow up” in their faith.

    Ditto on Charles Spurgeon! It’s funny, so many Baptists will quote Spurgeon’s sermons and don’t even realize that he was indeed a Calvinist, the Calvinsts on the other hand want to claim him as one of theirs, but often times will recoil at some of his messages on Grace, not believing some of the things he believed and taught.

    I’m with ya on the tulip. I use to joke that I was a 1 point calvinist, believing in the perseverance of the saints, but as I looked more closely at it, I realized it’s not “my” perserverence, it’s the Lord God Almighty’s “preserving” me!

    I don’t where the bluegrass vids went to, but you can find em if you youtube “Shenandoah Baptist Boys”if interested, I think there are 2, taken at a river baptism some few years ago.

  233. @greg
    Greg,
    You hit the nail on the head. No one, including most churched folks, is “aware” of all that is taking place. We were just desperately “aware” of our need, being convinced by the Spirit’s reproving work concerning our sin, Christ’s righteousness, and God’s righteous judgment. We needed, and wanted a Saviour from our sin and its judgment. At the same time we wanted a Saviour, we were willing to give over self (the best we understood) to the Lord.
    This truth is evidenced in the marriage typology. That precious bride gets married for the benefits. (I explain to Melissa, she missed out. She didn’t get what she bargained for.) She realizes that better or worse sometimes means a lot worse, richer or poorer sometimes means a lot poorer, etc. Even though she made the vows, she did not, yea, and could not comprehend the extent of her promise until things happened.
    You do not confuse people by telling them truth. You confuse them by trying to explain theology. Truth -You are a sinner. Christ Jesus is God & the Son of God, was born of a virgin, lived perfectly and purposefully to die for sinners. The third day He rose again from the dead, and is now seated in heaven with God the Father. The penalty has been paid, and if you are “willing” to call upon Jesus, trusting Him with your life. He shall save you from this sinful life that hounds you & pardon your sins. Simple evangelisitic preaching must declare Who Christ is, What He has done, Why he did it. Theology is what we discuss in an attempt to make ourselves think we can explain Who Christ is, What He has done, & Why He did it. Simple preaching is only confusing to those who are trying to figure things out by intellect, and not the Spirit.
    Nicodemus had this problem. That is what Jesus told him in John 3:10-21. Jesus had told him requirements. Nicodemus, who had just told Him that he knew that Jesus was a teacher SENT FROM GOD, said effectively “I don’t believe you, because what you are saying doesn’t fit my reasoning.” Jesus basically told him to get out of his boxed in view and just believe what I am saying & don’t marvel at it. Do not take this as an exposition, it is an overview of one point.
    My children want to be YouTube stars, so we uploaded a new video. “I’m satisfied with Jesus.”

    1. greg :

      I just have to wonder if the thief himself went through that entire progression in his mind, as opposed to just responding to the pull of the Holy Spirit.

      Actually, you’re right Greg. The Holy Spirit wasn’t sent until Pentecost AFTER the resurrection so there has to be another explanation for what prompted the thief – I personally like the idea that he “went through the entire progression in his mind”. I think God can use anything to draw us to Him, even our own minds.

      Richard :

      Simple preaching is only confusing to those who are trying to figure things out by intellect, and not the Spirit…Nicodemus had this problem.

      What makes you think that the Holy Spirit can’t use a person’s intellect to help him understand “simple preaching” or to draw him to salvation? It seems like you are saying intellect is a bad thing. The story of Nicodemus is but ONE conversion story in the bible. Aren’t you trying to put people (and God) in a box by implying that we must all believe the way Jesus told Nicodemus to believe?

      Just some things to think about. Hopefully it will help you think a little deeper with the remainder of your conversation. Overall this has been a great discussion guys!!! And except for the way Richard treated Charles, I’m thoroughly enjoying it. It’s giving me a bunch of ideas for new articles.

  234. @Steve
    Steve,
    1st let me say, it is good to hear from you, and I apologize for being unsensitive to Charles. He seemed, in my opinion, to be very abrasive & attacking over the way I said things and spelled. Writing is not my greatest ability. I guess that is why we need to learn to look beyond the possible words of men being too agressive & ask for clearity. Greg & I have done so, and I believe have a willingness to discuss issues through, or at least until we come to an impass, and then move on, respecting each other, though not completely agreeing on every jot & tittle.
    I believe there is a problem with the thought here concerning the Holy Spirit. Is He not the same one who moved upon the waters in Genesis 1, and again upon the prophets according to 2 Peter?
    Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
    2Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
    This being the case, and according to many other Scriptures, I believe it is obvious that He worked throughout history prior to pentecost. His main ministry, that of the indwelling Spirit can be traced to Pentecost, but I do not think that the Spirit started His drawing and empowering ministry then. I may be mistaking.
    Concerning the thief, I believe to the best of his finite mind (intellect), along with what God was revealing (illumination), he chose to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Reasoning and revelation work together.
    Nicodemus, on the other hand, at that moment recorded in John 3, was dealing totally on intellect and reason. Many of the educated elite do such. (I am speaking of the religiously educated for context sake). He could not overcome, at that moment, his intellect to receive illumination.
    Therefore, to be clearer, I believe Isaiah 1:18 teaches us to use our minds. “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD” The problem is when our intellect overrides illumination from the words of God. (Contrary to popular belief, even those of us who are IFB have and use our brains. I said that for laughs.)
    Yes, I believe everyone should believe the way Jesus told Nicodemus. I believe he told Nicodemus basically to trust the words He (Jesus) was speaking, not because they were humanly sensible but because they were heavenly sent. That is always what God expects for salvation.
    I believe writing on the excellency of Christ would be a great subject. Always keeping Him as a focus would have kept many IFB and others out of these conflicts of whether they are cultish or not. I am convinced that within every movement there are cultish groups.
    Hoping to hear from you again soon.

    1. Richard :

      I believe there is a problem with the thought here concerning the Holy Spirit. Is He not the same one who moved upon the waters in Genesis 1, and again upon the prophets according to 2 Peter?…This being the case, and according to many other Scriptures, I believe it is obvious that He worked throughout history prior to pentecost. His main ministry, that of the indwelling Spirit can be traced to Pentecost, but I do not think that the Spirit started His drawing and empowering ministry then. I may be mistaking.

      I wish I could be more involved with the discussions, but at this point I simply enjoy hearing from others and seeing a wide variety of thoughts and opinions. I’m declining to get caught up in all the nit picking. I would just like to correct some interpretation errors when I see them. This issue of the Holy Spirit is a central issue to Christianity and easily misunderstood. As such I feel compelled to try to address it.

      The Trinity has been around since the beginning, but after the Pentecost (Acts 2) the Holy Spirit was made available to fill the void that Jesus would leave after his ascension and would complete the establishment of the New Covenant era for us New Testament Christians. The Spirit was poured out on all believers at Pentecost shortly after Jesus ascended to heaven.

      See also John 14-16 – “…5 But now I am going away to the one who sent me, and not one of you is asking where I am going. 6 Instead, you grieve because of what I’ve told you. 7 But in fact, it is best for you that I go away, because if I don’t, the Holy Spirit won’t come. If I do go away, then I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will convict the world of its sin, and of God’s righteousness, and of the coming judgment. (John 16:5-8)

      So it doesn’t appear that the Holy Spirit was available before Pentecost to convict of sin. Jesus was playing the role that the Holy Spirit would play after his ascension, so it stands to reason that technically the thief was convicted by either Christ’s ministry before he was hung on the cross or after he was hung on the cross while considering the events that were transpiring. Therefore the thief may have admitted he was wrong and that he deserved his punishment, but we get no indication that he acknowledged he was a sinner or that he needed salvation. All he did was believe what Jesus said and asked Jesus to “remember me”.

      This is a very interesting topic and I hope that you will continue to flesh it out. We may never have answers to questions in our minds, but one thing is clear… each conversion experience is unique and we must make sure that we aren’t trying to judge what we think God should or shouldn’t do for salvation. There is no cookie cutter approach to salvation. Our responsibility is to share the gospel that’s it. It’s up to God and the Holy Spirit to do the rest. We must be careful not to have a dogmatic approach to salvation. We never know how God needs to work with each individual.

  235. @Steve
    Steve,
    First of all, I want to thank you for provoking me to thought, and for taking time out of your schedule.
    You said, “The Trinity has been around since the beginning, but after the Pentecost (Acts 2)
    the Holy Spirit was made available to fill the void that Jesus would leave after his ascension and would complete the establishment of the New Covenant era for us New Testament Christians. The Spirit was poured out on all believers at Pentecost
    shortly after Jesus ascended to heaven.”

    So that I can be nit-picky, I have an issue with the wording “since the beginning.” “Since” by definition according to Webster infers: “After; from the time that. The proper signification of since is after, and its appropriate sense includes the whole period between an event and the present time.” God was present “In” the beginning. I believe I know what you meant, being that I think you believe in the eternal Godhead, but the beginning of God can be a real issue in this generation.
    Not being so nit-picky, but back on point, I believe the Holy Spirit was sent according to John 16, as you stated, to fill the void for the believers that Jesus’ departure would leave. He was to be the Comforter (parakletos), someone they could commune with, and to comfort them. That was His only new ministry. God was finishing his intimate work. He finished creation by breathing Himself into man.(Genesis 2:7) “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Man sinned, thus losing this living Spirit, and finding himself dead in trespasses and sins. In re-creation (regeneration) God again breathes Himself into those who trust Him. (Ephesians 2:1) “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” This speaks of the indwelling Spirit. Up to this point I believe we are in agreement.
    The following verses of John 16 were not to tell of a new ministry of the Holy Spirit, but to reassure of Who is doing the work, the continuing ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Lord had always been there to reassure them, and He was about to give them instructions to go into all the world and preach the gospel. He wanted them to know that the same Person that did the work through Him would do the work through them. Jesus had already told them that it was the Father who did the works, not Him. (John 14:10) “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” The question might be: How did the Father work? He worked the same way as He had throughout history, by His Spirit. Every sinner that ever truly came to repentance was convicted/drawn/reproved of sin by the Spirit of the Father. He changeth not.

    As to the thief, you have honestly confused me. You said, “Therefore the thief may have admitted he was wrong and that he deserved his punishment, but we get no indication that he acknowledged he was a sinner or that he needed salvation. All he did was believe what Jesus said and asked Jesus to “remember me”.”
    I have always thought that a sinner was one who sinned (had done wrong). What is a sinner? What must someone admit? I know why I was a sinner, but what God dealt with is not my lineage, but my lusts (not necessarily sexual), and my behaviors. What we do is what God deals with us about. There is never once that Jesus dealt with men about Adam’s sin nature being passed down, and our deadness. He dealt with the sin in their life.
    You are right that the thief did not admit that he needed salvation. I did not see that wording ever expected. He realized and admitted very clearly that he needed, or at least wanted Christ. “Remember me” Why? Because you are the Lord in your kingdom, and as one other said, “ speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.” He said, “Lord, remember me.” In essence saying “Lord, remember me, the one who turned to you, & trusted you, and have mercy on me a sinner (or one who has done wrong).”
    It happens the same way every time. Not always the same details, but always an admission of guiltiness for sins, and a turning & trusting in the Lord who has authority to do something to save from the wrath to come.

    1. Richard :
      I have an issue with the wording “since the beginning.”

      This feels like a semantics game to me. We are talking about the role of the Holy Spirit not his origins. We can discuss the eternality of the Trinity in a different discussion if you want – although I have a feeling we would agree about it.

      Richard :
      (John 14:10) “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” The question might be: How did the Father work? He worked the same way as He had throughout history, by His Spirit. Every sinner that ever truly came to repentance was convicted/drawn/reproved of sin by the Spirit of the Father.

      I see two mistakes with your analysis of this verse (besides the fact that it was pulled out of context):
      First, you’ve conveniently ignored a key phrase in that verse: “I am in the Father…”. This isn’t the typical way that the Holy Spirit works. We aren’t “in the Holy Spirit”. This verse is talking about a unique relationship that Jesus had with the Father during his ministry. This is evidenced by the scriptural context in verses 16 and 17 – see below.

      Second, the Father is NOT the Holy Spirit. If Jesus was referring to the Holy Spirit in verse 10 why did he say the Father? If you continue reading in that same chapter just a few verses down you’ll see that Christ says in verse 16 and 17: 16: “…and I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, who will never leave you. 17: He is the Holy Spirit, who leads into all truth. The World at large cannot receive him, because it isn’t looking for him and doesn’t recognize him.” The Holy Spirit was promised after Christ’s death and resurrection.

      So there has to be a different explanation. Why would Jesus tell his disciples that he was sending “another counselor…the Holy Spirit” if the Holy Spirit was already there? Maybe it was simply a matter of a change in the role of the Holy Spirit? Maybe it was a change in the function of the Holy Spirit? I think it stands to reason that in verse 10, Jesus was talking about the Father not the Holy Spirit or perhaps at least a different form of the Holy Spirit with a different function.

      And I don’t think that you can know that “Every sinner that ever truly came to repentance was convicted/drawn/reproved of sin by the Spirit of the Father.”. That sounds like an impossible claim to knowledge to me. Even if what you said is true, it’s impossible to know that for absolute certainty.

      Richard :
      I have always thought that a sinner was one who sinned (had done wrong).

      What I meant was, we get no indication that the thief knew 1. what sin is and/or 2. that he was a sinner in need of salvation. All we know is that he admitted that he deserved his punishment. It appears to me that he was thinking strictly from a human perspective rather than a spiritual one. If so then logic would dictate that he didn’t “get saved” like we think of it today. If not, then how did he come to that knowledge without the Holy Spirit? Like I said earlier, more than likely from the ministry of Jesus.

      Is there a difference between spiritually knowing you are sinning and the normal human guide of our moral conscience? I think so. We all have a moral compass. Even people who reject spirituality still know what wrong is based on societal norms and expectations and other factors. These are people who reject the concept of sin as it relates to religion and spirituality, but still know what “wrong” is. I believe that this is what the thief on the cross was doing. Of course only God knows the heart so I can’t say for certain.

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

      On a side note… This has really made me think a lot more about sin. I’m really beginning to wonder if the church has done a grave disservice by over spiritualizing the concept of sin. Technically you’re right, sin is synonymous to “wrong”, however, we don’t often think of sin outside the confines of morality (should we? I’m not sure). I wonder if Christian circles have incorrectly interpreted what’s “wrong” in a person as sin when it really isn’t. Something that’s sin – as in transgression of divine law – is always wrong, however, something that’s wrong – as in not in accordance with recommended practice (e.g., she chose the wrong way to balance the ledger) – isn’t always sin.

      but, this is beginning to feel like another semantics game so I need to flesh this out a little bit on my own. But it’s interesting to think about.

  236. Steve,

    Being “nit-picky” & semantics are two different things, neither of which is able to further this conversation of the role of the Holy Spirit. Also, I believe it is not necessary to discuss the beginning of the “eternal Spirit” (Hebrews 9:14), since He is part of the “eternal power and Godhead” spoken of in Romans 1:20.

    “The verses of John 16 were not to tell of a new ministry of the Holy Spirit, but to reassure of Who is doing the work, the continuing ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Lord had always been there to reassure them, and He was about to give them instructions to go into all the world and preach the gospel. He wanted them to know that the same Person that did the work through Him would do the work through them.”

    When you say I am not “analyzing” John 14:6 correctly, you are absolutely correct. I was not analyzing John 14:6. I was using John 14:6 to show that Jesus the Person on the cross was not alone in the work of conviction of the sinner (thief/malefactor). You seemed to imply that He was. “So it doesn’t appear that the Holy Spirit was available before Pentecost to convict of sin. Jesus was playing the role that the Holy Spirit would play after his ascension, so it stands to reason that technically the thief was convicted by either Christ’s ministry before he was hung on the cross or after he was hung on the cross while considering the events that were transpiring.”
    I will try again to explain John 16:9, leaving out John 14:6 (which I shall deal withlater)
    1. According to John 16:9 the Holy Spirit was to deal with a specific “sin,” the sin above all sins, rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Prior to this, the eternal Holy Spirit of God was the Revealer of the will of God to men, thus making Him the revealer of “sins.”
    2. Some would say, “Nay, this is not true based on the fact that the ‘Law’ is the revealer of sinfulness to mankind.” To which the Bible believer would have to say, “Yea & Amen, except for one little point. The ‘Law’ is just words unless the Spirit illuminates.” God is, always has been, and always shall be the Substance, source, & sustainer of true light.
    God’s words have always been Spiritually discerned. He has always been the Guide, and it has always been the Holy Spirit who did this particular work.
    3. As to the particulars of the thief on the cross. He transgressed the ‘Law’ or to put it in another term ‘sinned.’ He realized he deserved punishment, and turned to call on the Lord Jesus Christ. This could only be “foolishness” or “faith.”
    — Foolishness – if he was talking to some man who was innocent but dying. What good is memory in the grave? Was he saying that he wanted Jesus to be haunted with the memory of watching some man die? Was he mocking Jesus by calling Him “Lord”?
    — Faith – He really believed this Jesus who hung beside Him was the Lord over a kingdom, and that His remembrance could change the whole situation. He must have believed Jesus was going to live after dying. He believed the impossible, and rested all his hope on this dying One to save him somehow, if only He might “Remember.” How does this happen without the Spirit of God doing the work? Of course we know that God divinely intervened giving this one, who willfully yielded, faith to believe the “impossible.”
    — The only way to come to the Lord Jesus is by the drawing of the Father. (John 6:44) “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” This is a present tense statement.
    — We know for this man to have Bible faith he must have had the words of God revealed to his heart. (Romans 10:17) “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
    — We know that without “faith” God would not be pleased. (Hebrews 11:6) “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”
    NOTICE: Everyone that comes to God (the Lord Jesus Christ) believes two things: 1) His existence; & 2) His expression of love through rewards (the first of which is Life or to put it another way salvation: the life-giving work of Christ).A
    –We know that this principle of faith was OT as well as NT. (Hebrews 4:1-2) “Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.”
    This whole thing seems simple. – The thief heard the word of God, the Spirit of God (who is the Spirit of the Father, & is the Spirit of Christ) took the word and pierced in and discerned the heart, leaving him hopeless and helpless. Then by divine grace, God enabled the thief, who was wanting & willing, to turn and trust in the dying Lord to save him. Why else would he want to be remembered?
    This is always, in essence, how salvation happens. God, who never changes, has been doing the same thing since Adam, who found himself with naked and needy trying to clothe himself from the result of his death deserving disobedience. He confessed his self-willed sin, and was covered by God’s substitutionary sacrifice.

    Thanks for the time. I hope this goes through this time.

  237. @Steve
    Dear Steve,
    Just a few thoughts concerning your perception concerning the thief on the cross.
    1. Conscience is a gift of grace, as was the law. They are spiritual compasses.
    Romans 2:13-15 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

    2. Nature reveals the existence and judgment of God.
    Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

    Therefore, whether this thief was a Jew or Gentile, he knew that there is a God, though he may have been taught, and even convinced himself of God’s non-existence. There is much Scripture to verify this truth.
    Men do not need to be taught that God exists, neither that He has rules. We must let them know that this God also made a way to escape the wrath to come.

    3.As to this thief “was thinking strictly from a human perspective rather than a spiritual one.” I must be missing something. He had that view at first when he was mocking our Lord, but to turn to a dying man, recognize His authority (Lord), and realize that there was a coming kingdom in which this Man was to rule, is anything but “a human perspective.” It must be divine!
    “Sins” as actions, whether they be against the laws of nature, or against the laws of God’s commandments, are always what leads a person to seeing their need to change, and ultimately, unless given some psychological band aid, reveals the deserving of judgment. This is why individuals, and even societies, try to fix behavior, and demand retribution for certain behaviors that are dictated as improper, and make excuses like “they are born that way” to excuse others. God declares we are all “born that way,” sinners.

    “Wrong” is a very non-specific word, being that some call “different” “wrong.” It is “wrong” in the strict sense to dress immodestly, but some would say it is “wrong” to dress differently from their personal views.
    For example: Adam may have told his woman “do not even touch that fruit.” Was he wrong to tell her such? No. If he told her “God said do not even touch that fruit” he would be “wrong.” There is difference. The woman (Eve) would not be “wrong” not to touch the fruit, and would be “wrong” to touch it. Disobedience to authority is “wrong,” unless, of course, that authority is demanding something contrary to what God says. (This is different, not contrary). We know it is wrong to say, “God said” when God hath not said.

    I say all this to say that Christians and Churches sometimes use the word “wrong” improperly when they should say “different.” For example, I will use one of the issues Greg & I discussed. For me to drink alcohol (other than medicinal), based upon conviction & church covenant, would be “wrong.” For me to say, “It is ‘wrong’ for Greg to drink a glass of wine” would be “wrong.” It is only unwise, being that it can be so deceptive. I also see the other side, when men so often try to justify self by saying, “What’s wrong with ….?”

    That’s all for now. You & some of the others make me think & re-think. That is good.

  238. @Steve
    Steve,
    First, as you probably already figured out I used a “wrong” reference in my earlier post. I meant John 14:10 not 6. (“Wrong” meaning unintentional error or incorrect.)

    You asked and then gave an answer to this question, “If Jesus was referring to the Holy Spirit in verse 10 why did he say the Father?”

    The main reason for this is that Jesus came to earth with a focus on the Father, and the Father’s ministry to mankind. This idea permeates the gospels. How did He do this? The same way He expects us to glorify Him and His Father, by the indwelling & empowering Spirit.
    John 3:34-35 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
    John 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
    John 17:3-4 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
    John 17:26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it:
    The responsibilty of a son is to protect the reputation of the family (father’s) name, and to propagate renown for the family name. Certainly Christ did so for His Father.
    John 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

    Now, after Pentecost, we have the Holy Spirit, Spirit of Christ, & the Spirit of God living inside us. We are also in Christ, Who is in the Father, sealed with the Spirit, and seated in the heavenly places.

    What is the work of the Spirit in us? Comforter & Counselor.
    What is the work of the Spirit through us? Focus on Christ.
    Comforter – John 16:7 … for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
    Counselor – John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
    Christ focused – John 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

    The issue here is that I do believe that Christ is in me & that the Holy Spirit dwells in me. They are two individual Persons but are both intertwined as part of the one Godhead, one Spirit. I believe that Christ, when He did His work as the man Christ Jesus, did it by the power of the indwelling Spirit Who was given by the Holy Father. As my Methodist brother said, “He emptied Himself of all but love,” thus, always needing to yield to the Spirit of His Father for guidance. He did nothing of Himself.

    I believe we agree on this. Therefore, we come to how did the thief come to Jesus? By the same means as anyone else: somewhere along the line, he heard preaching (teaching, talking about, etc.) about Jesus. He, under the convicting power of the Spirit by the Word, chose to believe and turn to Christ.
    The blind man did it, and was healed after making a scene. The lady with the issue of blood did it and was healed. The list goes on & on. Whether they heard about Him from being placed in His presence, or heard and searched Him out, the account is always the same. They had an obvious need, and were willing to obey His word (trusting Him), and were “saved/delivered.”

    The examples of raising the dead were not about our responsibilty but the extent of His ability, but I can say the dead responded to His words of life.

    Well, my day off has been great, doing what I love most: working with the word, and reflecting on the Word.

  239. Steve, May I give a good hearty Amen!!! Sweet, wonderful message from the Precious Word of God!! This is what I needed today! (alot of exclamations but that’s better than a bunch of Caps)

  240. Steve and Richard – Great exchanges! The above “kudos” I actually sent to the wrong person!!! Richard good work here!! Of course Steve always come loaded to the gills with love and grace and I do appreciate the good work he does here, but to think that I got your response mixed up with Steve’s is a great compliment! Not that you are crazy or anything, it’s just that I have had much more experinece with Steve and have come to know his heart. What Steve said very early on still applies ” Our responsiblity is to share the gospel, the rest is up to God and the Holy Spirit” and may I add that’s where this “salvation” experience gets somewhat “mysterious.” God’s ways are above our ways, He does things we simply cannot comprehend from this side of eternity. That’s why many of us get antsy when some IFB says it must be like this A,B,C repeat after me. That type of attitute or understanding of the gospel if you will, is a tad simplistic.

    What is the gospel? It is the power of God unto Salvatiion. To whom? To everyone that believes.

    Anyway, Richard God bless you today! I enjoyed your comment very much!

  241. @greg
    Greg,
    I am not surprised one bit that you would think that Steve wrote my posts. He probably could have. I do believe you, as with most on this site, have read into my posts at times things that were not meant because of the hurt and frustration you have with those you call IFBers. (Most of them claim a name that misrepresents them. They are not Independent since they follow their particular idol: Hyles, Ruckman, etc. They are not Baptistic in their view of individual soul liberty, autonomy of the church, and priesthood of every believer. Certainly, they are not Fundamental based upon the definition of the word.)
    Concerning the area of the A, B, C, repeat after me philosophy, it permeates the “church” today. Evangelistic Explosion was Presbyterian, the wordless book from Child Evangelism Fellowship, The Romans Road or the John Bread with Romans sandwich that some Baptistic groups use, etc. are all programs to bring someone to salvation. Programs and proper procedures have removed the need for the precious Holy Spirit and preaching according to the philosophy of modern churches. Please let me clarify this thought: Programs are tools God can use, but only when we use them while being guided by the Spirit.
    I looked for Jesus or His early church followers asking, “If you died today would you go to heaven?” I did not find it anywhere. The issue about salvation, on man’s part, is not about going to heaven or hell; it is about committing to Christ & trusting Him. Whatever happened to “Follow me” or as we would say it “Follow Christ with all your heart,” then expecting the Holy Spirit to turn the willing as he trusts the word enabling him to believe to the saving of His soul?
    The reason that there is a lacking of sincere separation leaving sinfulness & selfishness is founded in the failure in “soul-winning” practices. Many see a need for numbers and fail to have committed converts. (“Commit” is synonymous with “believe.” Compare John 2:23 “believed” with 2:24 “commit.”)
    This same problem is why many of your so-called IFBers spend so much time dealing with standards. When a person truly dies to self-will would he or she has a willingness to submit.

    Hebrews 13:17 – Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

  242. Richard – Still liking what you’re saying. (mostly/smiles)

    One of the problems with the IFB, of course as you pointed out is that folks find a guru, and then start following him. But I’m afraid that the independent thing isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, particularly as it relates to the IFB, on more issues than this one. Essentially, as I have come to perceive it, in our current time, the IFB Pastor ends up taking on vastly more authority than he should have, or is biblically responsible for. I’m reminded (power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely) I have seen this in IFB so often, I mean to the point that you can’t purchase a car w/out consulting with a pastor, must be ok’d which college your kids attend, when and where you can vacation and on and on. Of course almost all (in my experience) Pastors select “yes” men for their deacons, guys that if they disagree with the pastor, will eventually be moved out of their positions, or learn to tow the line, miraculously the Pastor will get a “vision” from God about adding on to the sanctuary and all of the Deacons will too, and if not, well ol Bill, has been having some problems and isn’t right with God. I know all about what the IFB teaches about Bishop/Deacons (funny their favorite translation says Bishop but they don’t like/use that term) I just no longer agree that what I have personally experienced is a biblical “model” for how churches are “supposed” to be run. I’m not settled just yet as to how they should be run, (working on it) but what I have experienced doesn’t seem like it is biblically correct. The Pastor is supposed to be a humble servant, not a king. What happens in most IFB’s is this, if you have a wonderful, humble servant of God, things go along nicely, for awhile, if not, just the opposite. So the church “takes on” the personality of the simple, sinful Pastor instead of the Precious Lamb of God. I don’t like it!

    So Hebrews 13:17 makes me alittle nervous. Well Greg you’re not right with God, well I hope I am, I’m trying. No, you see I want to obey someone over me, someone that cares, is humble, and that I’m accountable to, but I haven’t found a place like that yet in the IFB, in fact nothing really close to it!

  243. @greg
    Greg,
    “Independent” is probably the area I most strongly agree with when discussing the IFB. Independent of all ecclesiastical hierarchy and government hierarchy is what the autonomy of the church means. Independent to have the music they believe would honor Christ. Independent to use materials of their choosing. No being forced to give to missions programs you do not agree with. This is the historical Baptist view. I am not saying loose knit conventions, associations, and fellowships are sinful, but that any time the association can tell the church how to operate there is a flaw in philosophy. Christ is supposed to be the head/leader of the church.
    Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

    Your statement, “I’m reminded (power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely)” shows me just how much we as Christians have bought into humanistic philosophy. “Power” is only a revealer of corruptness, not the producer. God tells us in Jeremiah 17:9 that we certainly don’t need power to become corrupt.
    Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    Concerning your examples of needing pastoral approval when purchasing or educating, this is utter foolishness and abuse of the office of the bishop. Going for counsel is different than going for permission. At least twice in the Book of Proverbs is the principle declared concerning safety in counsel.
    Proverb 11:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.
    One thought concerning this principle is that we should get counsel from experts in the subject, others who might see the pit-falls of a bad decision, & people who we trust. The pastor should fit one of those categories.
    Concerning this thing of terminology, I believe it is a shame we do not use the term “Bishop” when speaking of the office. “Pastor” is a gift &/or calling upon a man’s life. “Elder” deals more with the qualifications to hold the office. “Overseer” is concerning the responsibility of the office. A church can have multiple pastors & elders based upon size and design of church polity, but can have only one man holding the office of the bishop, who is the one responsible for the oversight of the whole of that congregation. So that you can know that I know sayings also, I have heard it said, “Anything with more than one head is a monster.” Christ is the head, the bishop is the undershepherd.

    Every Christian is supposed to be Christ-like, especially those in authority. The problem is that men are involved in the process, and always shall be. That is not an IFB problem, but a church problem.
    The servant was the king in David’s case. David sinned because he chose to yield to his position of power instead of the Provider of power. David caused chaos in the kingdom by not enforcing the law of God when his sons sinned. David declared death upon a man undeserving of death when Nathan told him about the rich man taking the poor man’s sheep. The problem was not the position, it was the person, and David was a man after God’s heart.

    From reading your posts, I do not perceive a man who has a problem with Hebrews 13:17 in a general sense. It is dealing with spiritual authority, and is a warning against an attitude of rebellion. There is a big difference between having questions about things and being questioning about everything. Blind obedience is not expected, believing obedience is. I do not have to believe the authority is absolutely within the letter of the Bible, but I must believe that he is not contrary to the Bible, and is desiring my walk with the Lord to be all that it can be. Then I yield, sometimes knowing it is well beyond Biblical commands, but that this man has me in his heart.
    My pastor is the ensample of the believer, and loves me as a son in the faith. I only found such love in IFB churches. Then again, I have only seen the horrid treatment of brethren to the extreme in IFB churches. I still come to the conclusion that the problem is people, not the doctrines or standards of the church, for the most part.

  244. Richard – What I am beginning to doubt is the whole entire concept of Baptistic belief. I’m sure you have been exposed to “The trail of Blood” This is perhaps one of the biggest pieces of fiction I have ever seen! Most of the Baptist churches that I have been exposed to here in Va. hold closely and believe this propaganda. That doesn’t mean that these churches aren’t “good’ churches but it certainly means they don’t know alot about history, and if they don’t know alot about history, what else don’t they know about?

    Jesus never concerned himself about “denominations” I just don’t see that anywhere in his teachings. It appears that “men” concerned themselves too much with it and now we ended up in the mess that we are in. As a Baptist I was taught that we had all the answers, that we alone held the keys to Heaven, all other denominations were lost and needed us to help them find the truth. Oh my!! It now seems to me that the Baptists are just as confused as the Methodists, Lutherans, gulp, even Catholics!! We don’t hold all the answers as a denomination, in fact the attitude of many in this faith actually embarrass me. It is Christ/bible that has those answers! I want to point folks to Christ not a denomination! In my circle of fundydom, Billy Graham was often looked at as an anti-christ because he didn’t promote “the baptist” denomination. He told the “new” converts to find places of worhip they were comfortable in and that taught the word of God. The older I get the more I see the wisdom in that way of thinking.

    I am getting to the point that I’m not real interested in going to church and hearing tales from the MOG (man of God, yep, it’s sarcastic) about him and how he did thus and such, he is the hero of all his tales. I want to go to church and hear Jesus, Jesus, Jesus. Jesus said if I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me. I shared some of my bluegrass groups music with you, I don’t know how many times I have stood before congregations and said, “We are here to lift up the name of Jesus” and then quote the above verse. No denomination has the corner on truth, at one time I really thought that the Baptists were alittle closer, but now I’m not so sure.

    Question: Acts 12:4 KJV Do you agree with “Easter” or do you think it should be “Passover.”

  245. @greg
    Greg,
    Before I deal with Acts 12:4, which is a verse that I have studied but never really understood the “why” of what many call a mistranslation, I want to deal with “Baptistic” beliefs.

    The first and foremost belief system of Baptists are based upon the “Autonomy of the church” and the individual rights & relationship of the saints. This is why Baptistic groups were not sucked in to the mingling of the holy & the profane by Constantine’s united universal (catholic) church movement. Many of these groups did not see eye to eye on issues and did not fellowship together, but were branded as non-conformists because they believed God.
    What are called “Baptist beliefs” are actually basic (fundamentals) of Bible doctrine.
    1) The church is a separate entity which cannot be ruled by any secular or spiritual hierarchy. Only the church can dictate to the church concerning her practices, and this is to be done by diligently studying and adhering to the Scriptures. This is the basis for what is known as constitutional separation of church & state, and the belief that Christ is the head of every assembly.
    All churches prior to Constantine were pretty much self-governed and not government sanctioned and subsidized, or to put it in another term, Baptist.
    2) Baptism follows salvation. It does not bring salvation, nor is it a pre-curser to salvation. Catholics call baptism a means of grace (sacrament) necessary in order to deliver a person unto salvation. The Church of Christ believes baptism is the last requirement to be saved.
    3) Baptist historically believed in individual soul liberty, which means God can speak to the individual through the scriptures. This contradicts the papists and some modern religionists who believe that some bishops and leaders have some special message overriding the scriptures.
    4) Baptists believe that every believer has direct access to God, this is called the priesthood of the believer. Therefore there is no nicety to go through a priest or potentate for forgiveness or fellowship (1 Timothy 2:5).
    5) Baptists unite together in a congregation because of love for the brethren, not because of constraint of law but of love. These are basic Bible and Baptist beliefs. Which one do you have a problem with?

    Concerning the Easter/Passover controversy. In my studies I have not found any reason or anywhere it would benefit the translators to mistranslate this word. Therefore, though “pascal” is found in many of the majority texts for Acts, I yield to the character of the majority of the translators until conclusive evidence is brought forth that there was an intentional misrepresentation. I do not believe in divine translators, but in divine preservation. To argue this point any further, please show me in Greek, Hebrew, English, or any other language the perfectly preserved “words” of God. Psalm 12:6-7 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. ”

    Diligent translation. Divine preservation.
    God bless you and hope to hear from you soon.

  246. Richard – I have the book “Trail of Blood” and alot of what you wrote sounds eerily similar to that.

    There are some huge leaps of logic that you take here, or running loose with the facts. It appears that you are saying that everyone that didn’t go along with Constantine was a Baptist! This is the same type of treatment, as I recall, that the “Trail of Blood” uses. We can’t simply point to a time where some folks disagreed with a powerful religious/political leader and then “claim” them as Baptists! I appreciate that folks carried the same type of faith that I have, real faith in a living Saviour, but that is a very far leap to contend they were Baptists.

    We really see no denominations mentioned whatsoever in the Scripture. I simply cannot imagine that with all the spiritual and sexual abuses carried out in the IFB, that this is the “denomination” that God inspired, or has His hand on. I am not opposed necessarily to joining together and calling yourself a Baptist church, hopefully that group will do better than those that we discuss at this site, but clearly man-worship, legalism, spiritual/sexual abuse is rampant in the IFB right now.

    You talk about the beliefs of Catholics and Church of Christ as it relates to baptism, and I would agree that they are not teaching about baptism correctly, but you know what I first thought of when I read that? Look at the Baptist’s, they believe in “magical” prayers for salvation, so really what’s worse! Yes the catholics, and COC’s have problems, but so do the baptists, we (I’m still at a Baptist church at this minute, not necessarily proud of it, much prouder to be a child of the King) have big problems as well.

    My pastor is a huge KJV fan and will admit that “Easter” at Acts12:4 should be “Passover.”
    Just a few points.

    1) “pascha” appeared 29 times in the texts the KJV translators were using and they translated it “Passover” 28 other times.

    2) The verse preceeding says “Then were the days of unleavened bread.” The days of unleavened bread were of course connected with the Passover celebration.

    3) Luke’s ref to the days of “unleavened bread” makes it clear that he is referring to the Jewish holiday season, not to some pagan festival that did not become known by the term “easter” for some time to come.

    4) Josephus tells us that Herod was “a conspicuous observer of the Jewish customs and rituals,” and since he was attempting to please the Jews (Acts 12-3) it is obvious that Luke is referring to the Jewish Passover, not a pagan celebration.

    5) KJVonly’s (think Sam “Bullgipp” Gipp) try to make the “days of unleavened bread” a completely separate period of time from the “Passover.” Unfortunately for Sammy the term “the Passover” is used of the entire celebration, including the days of unleavened bread after the actual sacrifice of the Passover, in other places in Scripture it wraps the entire celebration under the term the “feast of the Jews” in John 2:13, 2:23, 6:4 and 11:55

    6) When Luke penned this somewhere along or after 60 a.d. there was no such thing as Easter. Easter never even made an appearance in an English bible until William Tyndale’s.

  247. @greg
    Greg,
    Let me say to start with, I have not read “The trail of Blood” in years, so really believe it to be an irrelevant piece of literature. It is right though in some areas if it agrees with the historical facts which I stated. (I did not invent the facts.)
    “Magical” prayers are a make believe view of other groups more than IFB. Real prayer, calling on the Lord from the heart, is necessary. I can reference verses all day long that God operates according to our willing desiring calls and/or cries. He has always been that way. Faith always produces action. If you believe you are helplessly & hopelessly lost, and you see a Man (the Lord Jesus) who is able and willing to save you, you not only will, but shall, cry out “Lord, save me!”
    Catholics actually called those who did not agree with the gathering of all together under Constantine by names. We did not call ourselves Baptists at first, but the title became ours by default over the years, and stuck. Baptists even today, recognize that we are not a “denomination” but just individual churches who believe we have an inalienable right given by God to worship without oversight by any hierarchy besides Christ Himself. We are the “non-denomination”/non-conformists. We have groups that fellowship together. We have groups that associate together. We have a large group that unites together in a convention. What we do not have is anyone outside the local assembly who can force the assembly (church) how to operate. That is why an IFB church can join the SBC, or an SBC church (who is not indebted) can just up and quit supporting the Annie Armstrong & Lottie Moon offerings, and by changing their constitution or by-laws (without any permission from the convention) can become IFB. (If they are indebted, or under agreement due to previous loans, they need to give back the loan or property sometimes.)
    As to the COC (which came out of a Baptist association), or the Romanists (who conquered the world by religion, mingling paganism, witchcraft, and Christianity), they believe totally wrong about SALVATION not baptism. (I am not saying that there are no “Christians” in these denominations, but that their beliefs are contrary to Christ.) If you asked your Sam Gipp, (whoever he is. I assume he is some IFB dictator from the impression I get from you.)how a person get saves, he would most likely not say that it is based upon some “magical” prayer, but upon “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” Therefore the problem with many “soul-winners” is not with belief, but with behavior. We believe correct about salvation (COCs & RCs do not), but sometimes focus too much on an outward response than an inward response; and that only makes sense if we believe the Bible, “for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.”
    You said, “I simply cannot imagine that with all the spiritual and sexual abuses carried out in the IFB, that this is the “denomination” that God inspired, or has His hand on.”
    The answer is IFB is not a denomination. You cannot find a denomination where there is no abuse. As long as there are people allowed to be part of a church you will find abuses and misuses.
    God inspired His Words. His Words, by the power of the Holy Ghost, instruct His people. People choose to yield to the Spirit or to their own heart. Jeremiah 17:9 tells the rest of the story if we choose not God.
    You said, “I am not opposed necessarily to joining together and calling yourself a Baptist church, hopefully that group will do better than those that we discuss at this site, but clearly man-worship, legalism, spiritual/sexual abuse is rampant in the IFB right now.”
    The answer to this is “do it.” Remember, the bigger the lake the bigger the chance that there are diseased fish that you can’t see. In our church of about 70-80 members, there is no obvious abuse, (no abuse from leadership). In a majority of IFB churches there is no abuse, but if you lump all of them together you will find some. For the record, I was raised RC and never met an abusive priest, but I have heard of many.

    You said, “4) Josephus tells us that Herod was “a conspicuous observer of the Jewish customs and rituals,” and since he was attempting to please the Jews (Acts 12-3) it is obvious that Luke is referring to the Jewish Passover, not a pagan celebration.”
    Josephus only said what you put in quotations. Who made the jump that something was obvious in Luke’s reference? Josephus was not attempting to debate a Bible verse, especially since “6) When Luke penned this somewhere along or after 60 a.d. there was no such thing as Easter. Easter never even made an appearance in an English bible until William Tyndale’s.” Let’s leave Josephus to talk about what he is talking about. He is a great Jewish historian, not an expert on Bible translation.

    Oh, by the way, I requested two things, which were never dealt with.
    1) These are basic Bible and Baptist beliefs. Which one do you have a problem with?
    2) To argue this point any further, please show me in Greek, Hebrew, English, or any other language the perfectly preserved “words” of God.
    Concerning #1) I personally believe you believe the stated truths of the Bible and Baptist history. Most what call themselves “non-denominational” churches are Baptistic in these basic beliefs. (I am not endorsing most of them due to other doctrinal issues, but must confess that some are very Baptistic).
    Concerning #2) Please tell me where we have God’s “words” preserved, and since I do not have a copy (according to your implications), please send one to me at the address on our web-site, http://www.candlestickbaptist.org. I am certain you, like me, want everyone to have the “words” of God, and I obviously do not know where to find a copy. (Please take what may appear as sarcasm as from a friend).

  248. @greg
    Greg,
    I looked up Sam Gipp, and read his article on “Easter/Passover.” I have read a few more articles from both sides of the issue.
    I see the point. If “pascha” clearly refers to the lamb, the feast, or the day, as it does throughout every other time, (Remember, Greek is NT so Ezekiel does not use the word “pascha” in the originals), you & your crowd believe Herod was planning to hold Peter in prison a whole year until the day of the Jews Passover. Believe it if you want. I do not believe this.
    You explain to me from the NT what makes sense, since the Jews Passover was past when Peter was arrested.
    Why would not the Jews be excited to glorify God, by killing Peter during the days of unleavened bread? It would have been ridding them of some of the Leaven of Christianity.
    Etymology of the word shows it could translated either unless specified, as it is in both other Post Ressurection books, Corinthians & Hebrews. Similarity of all the Romantic languages show Easter as a good translation.
    I could not tell you my opinion. I yield to the translators, and the divine Preserver. Both sides of the arguers have points, but my question is “Why?” Why translate this word differently if it were a mistranslation that everyone could find. Why, unless you believed, through dilligent work, it to be the best and most proper translation?
    Please tell me “Why” they intentionally mistranslated, if you believe they did, or how they became “stupid” in mistranslating one time out of 29.

  249. Richard – You said “If it agrees with the historical facts which I stated” Talk about fundy, oh, please!!! Richard you may get by with this in Texas, but not around here. I’m looking high and low and all I see is opinion with a smattering here and there of fact, like, once upon a time there was a man named Constantine!!! You said that “you didn’t invent the facts.” Well friend you sure aren’t sharing many either! Alot of exclamations don’t you think? But better than SHOUTING in caps. Folks of faith that did not bow down to Constantine’s round-up, were not all Baptists, it’s just that simple. I imagine there were many groups that did not jump in with Constantine and they had all types of beliefs, bible based, sincerely held, beliefs.

    You said “Magical prayers are a make-believe view of other groups.” Oh my! (another exclamation) Richard this entire site is for folks that have been spiritually abused to come and share and heal, real ministry, many are still in the IFB or have recently left. I’m still in an IFB (don’t know for how long) We are telling you we see the magical prayer promoted almost every Sunday and Wednesday. Do you think I am lying to you? Well you threw down the challenge, I want to see some A,B,C repeat after me bible verses……and I think it’s gonna take awhile. I want to be clear on this. Salvation is serious business, our Lord laid down His life so that we could be saved, it’s very serious, that’s why I am so opposed to “magical prayers” The scripture teaches nothing about it. The gospel is preached or sung or shared one-on-one, a person, after being exposed to the gospel, is asked (not drug down front, not guilted, not coerced, or kept standing and singing “Just as I Am” 22 times until the poor soul thinks if I don’t go down there and get saved I’m never gonna get out of here. Only when the Holy Spirit touches/draws that person will he even “be able” to call upon the Lord, and at this time, it is wonderful for that new convert to “call upon the Lord for Salvation.”

    You seem to have lots of issues with folks of other faiths. Every Catholic and Church of Christ member that genuinely calls upon the Lord for salvation will be there praising God. Get this, Greg and Richard do not have all the answers, and certainly man-exalting, abusive, proud and boastful, arrogant baptist churches don’t either.

    Let us (you and I) humble ourselves before an Almighty God!

    KJV Spelling Words: assumpim, collup, euroclydon, implead, manch, ossifrage (I have been receiving some complaints about the spelling words as of late, and just want to say that these are all wonderful bible words. God-breathed, inerrant, tried in the fire 7 times, perfect. Bless God, if he cares about the jots and tittles, you know very well He has to care about the words) Amen?

  250. @greg
    Greg,
    If you are trying to say that I believe everyone who did not go after the Romanist church under Constantine was a Baptist, I never said that. I said that many were Baptistic based upon the fundamentals that make us Baptist: 1) Autonomy of the Church, 2) Individual soul liberty, 3) Priesthood of every believer. History of the church is history of the church. I can’t help it that this is true. If you do not believe this is true, show me where I err.
    If you have not figured it out, I am against this A,B,C repeat some prayer garbage. I believe in Bible salvation, where a person under the convicting power of God turns to and trusts the Lord Jesus. All I have said is that it is not an IFB only problem. It is a program oriented soul-winning issue such as is used by many groups. You and I are in agreement. I said, “Magical prayers are a make believe view of other groups more than IFB;” not as you stated I said, “Magical prayers are a make-believe view of other groups.” I guess I should have said “more than just IFBs.” It is a common practice in many groups, and it is wrong.
    “You seem to have lots of issues with folks of other faiths.” As to my view on heresy, Baptismal regeneration is damnable (COC). Dispensing saving grace by Sacramental rituals is works salvation (RC). If you desire to defend such practices I know not why. Christ is our salvation.
    I said, “I am not saying that there are no “Christians” in these denominations, but that their beliefs are contrary to Christ.” You said, “Every Catholic and Church of Christ member that genuinely calls upon the Lord for salvation will bethere praising God.” This reads like we are in agreement.
    You said, “Greg and Richard do not have all the answers, and certainly man-exalting, abusive, proud and boastful, arrogant baptist churches don’t either.”
    I agree with you whole-heartedly, but I don’t limit it to Baptist churches. No “man-exalting, abusive, proud and boastful, arrogant” church or individual has all the answers. I claim not to have all the answers, the Bible does.

    I must once again explain that it is individuals who abuse people and exalt men beyond due measure. It is not in the doctrinal stand of some IFB church.

  251. Richard – What happened to the sweet spirit that was developing between us? I actually woke up this morning with our conversation on my mind. I don’t want strife between us really. I guess I care about God and His message and His plan most. I put religion or denominations or “groups that fellowship together” or however you describe today’s IFB’s, much below that. I care about Jesus and relationship with Him, that is what I strive to develop in me, and what I try to share with others. You might say I don’t promote religion/baptists, I promote a Saviour/relationship.

    It would appear to be (I could be wrong) that you are much more invested in organized religion or however you want to describe the IFB’s at this time in history, than I am. It seems that I am leaving that (or at least as I see it practiced in the IFB in the U.S. at this time) type of organization behind. But wait you would say, the bible teaches all about the church, leadership, functions, institutions etc..yes it does, and I don’t recognize what the bible says with most of what passes for “church” in the IFB.

    Hope this is making sense, just finished my first cup of coffee.

    Blessings to you.

  252. @greg
    Greg,
    You make good sense & I have no issue with your view. You and I agree for the most part. There are abusive people in authority in churches, some of which are IFB.
    Where we do not agree it seems is Church History, which I studied from RC books given to me from my mother, books borrowed from friends, Bible Institute, and a few books I purchased. From all aspects of my studies, along with how the Bible teaches concerning church polity, I believe the basic historical view of the evolution of Baptistic churches.
    Where we do not agree is that I believe that Baptist & Christian are synonomous doctrinally. I would not be a Baptist if it were not Christian.
    There are two basic types of Church Politics, local/church/body/Baptist or universal/hierarchy/papist/Romanist. Baptists believe every church is a body in itself. Romanists believe in universalism with hierarchy. With the reformation, the Protestants started denominations that had to choose leadership style, most stayed with the universal/Romanist view, and can even today be told how to run their assembly by some man or synod that makes rules for their denomination. Baptists are not so. Even the SBC, which is considered a denomination, has no power over the working of an individual church. The convention is made up of churches that are some Calvinistic & others Armenian (excuse spelling), some Pro-masonic lodge & others anti, some wine for Lord’s supper & others fruit of the vine, etc. The church has the authority, not the convention.
    As to you believing I have a vested interest in organized religion, I believe any religious group must be organized, and that disorganization is nearly, if not, sinful. I attempt to organize my life because I believe in organization.
    That being said, that is as far as it goes. I preach & teach relationship with Christ. Much of my teaching, other than Wednesday services, is open to the public on our web-site. You will be hard pressed to find promotion of religion over relationship. Actually, except for my lesson on the preservation of the Bible, you would probably not believe I am an IFB based on your experience on their teaching. I teach & preach Bible. The Bible teaches us of a relationship and fellowship with Christ.
    We shall talk later, God willing.

  253. @greg
    Just figured I would send my last nights outline so that you can find fault with Bible preaching on our relationship in Christ. I only send one point because that is all I preached.

    Ephesians 2: Grace, Grace, Marvelous Grace

    I. The Placement of Grace – vs. 6 “And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus”
    A. Where we were brought from –
    1. A Place of Depression – a low place – “And hath raised us up”
    2. A place of Distance – a lonely place
    (13) “were far off”
    (19) “strangers and foreigners”
    3. A place of Destitution – a lost place
    a. hopeless
    (12) aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
    b. helpless (Romans 5:6) “For when we were yet without strength”
    (5:8) “while we were yet sinners,”
    (5:10) For if, when we were enemies
    – there was a wall (15) “the middle wall of partition between us”
    – there was a war (16) “the enmity”
    B. Where we were brought to – “made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus”
    1. The place of rest – “made us sit”
    Rest is one of the hardest things for a child of God. Naturally, the child of God will fail at the grace of God, or fall from the grace of God.
    Hebrews 12:14-15a “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God”
    Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
    Failure of grace living is the first step to falling from the grace life.
    Failure is when we stop relying on grace to guide our sanctification.
    Fallen is the condition when we stop relying on grace to guarantee our salvation.
    2. The place of relevance –
    A place exalted – “hath raised us up”
    A place exquisite – “in heavenly places”
    3. The place of reassurance – “in Christ Jesus”
    We are so secure “in Christ” that for us to be kicked out of the heavenly places, Christ would have to go with us. We are safely sealed “In” Him.

  254. Richard – I agree that there are wrong teachings in the churches you mentioned. I guess what I want you to realize is that the Baptist church (of course when I say that, you don’t seem to realize this, or maybe you do, that could mean most anything! There are baptist churches that speak in tongues, lots of calvinistic churches, primitive, freewill and on and on, actually when you say Baptist church to someone these days, it could mean most anything, from Jan & Paul Crouch, health, wealth & prosperity types, to the silliest KJV corrects the Greek types, and all points in between, so Baptistic beliefs to you and your small congregation may means one thing, to someone else, another thing entirely. I attempted to get my pastor to take “Baptist” out of our title, but he wasn’t buying. It just struck me, this is just another thing for sinful man to get pride in. “Bless God I’m a Baptist!!!” I gottta tell ya, Jesus ain’t impressed.

    You said “baptistmal regeneration is damnable” not sure I would have described it quite like that, but agree its wrong teaching. You also said “dispensing saving grace through sacramental rituals is works salvation” Also agree. But where I come from (IFB) to be “right” with God requires a certain look, (proper haircut, ties/ maybe you could skip the coat, proper translation, none of those perversions for us! no secular music at all, no christian contemporary….true story – we had tracts about the evils of contempory music, one of them went into all kinds of details about Amy Grant and how she ran around and did this and that, it read like “Tattler” I was ashamed, cont. faithful attendance at all church functions, no disagreeing with the pastor over anything (after all he’s right under Go……He’s the undershepherd) tithing, no where in any NT scripture is tithing even suggested to any christian, only Jews under the law were ever required to tithe, and then it was only agricultural products from the land, given to a Levitical Priest. NT “giving” is Christians giving from the heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, because God wants us to be cheerful in our giving, and yet some under-educated pastor gets up in front of “his” flock and yells about tithing is 10% of your paycheck, and this is from your gross! And if you don’t give it God’s gonna curse you and your family! Are you starting to get the picture, yes, the examples you gave of other denominations demonstrate wrong teaching, and yet haven’t I just demonstrated massive wrong teaching from the Baptists? Well we don’t….., you only represent a sliver of baptists, this is my point. Litte Billy (Johnny gets picked on all the time) is raised up in a COC or Catholic church, follows all the rituals, guess what? God still loves him as much as me, in fact it was because of just this type of wickedness that caused the death of His Son. It’s as though you think you or the Baptists have a corner on truth and we don’t, Jesus died to save sinners, and I say along with Paul, “of who I am chief.” Billy can come to salvation if the Holy Spirit draws him, and then he “accepts” Him, that doesn’t mean he’s gonna run out and join a real church, a Baptist church, in fact he may never leave his “evil” religion. God, I truly believe, will judge us based on the knowledge and insight that we have been given. So even though Billy got saved, life threw him some bad curves and he never really got around to studying his bible to even know that some of the things he is being taught are wrong. He goes to church and “truly” worships to the best of his ability. I’m rambling but am I making any sense? I feel certain that you have folks sitting in your pews, who have never missed a meeting in years and yet would not be able quote a verse of scripture, who would nod nicely if the speaker asked if everyone found the book of Hesitations, in other words folks who hopefully are saved, but have never advanced in their knowledge of God, and never will, but want to worship and be with fellow believers.

    Bows and steps down off his soapbox……..but hope it makes some sense.

  255. @greg
    Greg,
    You get the point. Baptist can be a broad brush. That is why we narrow it down by calling ourselves Independent or Fundamental or Both. Then we have to explain our stands (some Scriptural, and as you so eloquently explain some not Scriptural). Is it wrong to have Baptist on your sign? No. Is it wrong to be Baptistic and not claim the title? No. What could be considered wrong is to change mid-stream. Why take an honored tradition and cast it aside? (Not all traditions are bad).
    Jesus did not come to get rid of religious activity of the Jews, but to refocus it. They cast Him off. He obeyed and fulfilled the law. The same can be said of Baptists, let them cast you aside as you go about doing good.
    As to being proud to be Baptist, I hear the same thing from the non-denominationalists, Romanists, COCs, Mormons, JWs, etc. Pride is something that you can have in whatever you are or are not. Pride is sin, and God hates it no matter who has it.
    My strong stand against heresies concerning salvation is because they supplant Christ and His finished work. (Galatians 1:8-9) “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”
    Anyone who teaches salvation by any other way than sincerely trusting Christ, or who places Christians under bondage to some rites, rules, or rituals to remain saved the Holy Spirit has testified “let him be accursed.”
    Billy Baptist should not make fun or make light of Ronnie the Romanist or Charlie Church of Christ. He should tell them the truth & pray for them. Billy Baptist ought to do the same for Frankie the fundamentalist. The problem is Billy Baptist does not care for others and so let’s them continue in their errors without trying to help. What if Ronnie the Romanist or Charlie Church of Christ never hears the truth of just trust Jesus who did it all, and goes through life trusting their religious rituals? Will Christ save them for their sincerity to lies? I declare not. Just like He shall not allow an unrepentant Fundamental Baptist to come to heaven based upon good works, he cannot let the sincerest religionist in.
    Your brand of IFB act as fools and give a bad name to Baptists, especially those who are Independent, and Bible Fundamentalists.
    My problem is that I love them. They be brethren though they be in error. I try to correct them when we come into contact, mostly to no avail. I do not ask them to change their convictions, but to cut out the condemnation. I live most of their convictions, so they are unable to call me a compromiser.
    1Corinthians 9:19-23 “For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.”

  256. Richard – I have tried to post a comment the last 2 days and neither have been taken. I will try to post again sometime, not sure what the problem is.

    1. Hey Greg,

      I talked with the webmaster. Seems as though the site was running low on disk space and could have been why you’ve been having trouble getting comments to post. Should be all fixed now. Sorry about that.

      If you continue to have problems, let me know.

      Patricia Gail
      Site Moderator

  257. Tks Patricia – I’ll give it another whirl, and Happy Passover to all.

    Richard – Even if you narrow it to independent or fundamental there are still huge differences between IfB’s, like I have mentioned before the IFB takes on the personality of the Pastor. If you have a humble (they are getting harder to find) godly, pastor – your church will follow, if on the other hand you have a domineering, legalistic pastor the church will reflect that mentality. I have observed this many times.

    Remember “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” Very few men can deal with the “power/authority” of being a pastor, particularly one in the IFB, because the buck stops with him. I’m not saying it’s impossible, just difficult, many as I have sarcastically said, are under-educated, then you take away virtually any outside control/safety features and you are developing a recipe for meglomania! Surrounded by hand-picked “yes” men, who is there to put a stop to his foolishness? Not all IFB pastors are bad or fall into these traps.

    I also don’t see in the scripture “church” being done the way IFB’s “do” church. I am still looking into this, but the whole one-man rule, coming into the sanctuary, all chairs/pews facing fwd to see and hear one man. Listening to a sermon every Sunday by the same man, no one else participating, almost forgot, on a raised platform, over everyone else, behind the sacred desk. I don’t think I’m buying, let’s have a look at one NT church in the city of Corinth and see if it’s anything like today’s IFB’s typical service.

    1 Cor 14:27-33 “If anyone speaks in a tongue, two – or at the most three – should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God. Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. for you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. the spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.

    I realize there were some gifts available then that are no longer available to the church now, but are you telling me we have gone from this exciting, many – folks participating type worship, to listening to “one” man? I don’t see it. Wouldn’t it be great if, when the pastor was in the middle of some long, drawn out condemning diatribe an elderly brother in the back of the church raised his hand and slowly pulls himself up on arthritic knees and is recognized by the pastor and then in a surprisingly strong yet loving voice says “pastor and church family I simply wish to say that ‘there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death'” That would be awesome. I simply cannot see in the scripture that the NT church is supposed to sit around and listen to one man week in and week out. I don’t see it.

    Well anyway if I have repeated any of the above in other posts forgive me, I haven’t had much luck posting lately, so here goes pressing submit.

  258. @greg
    Greg,
    First, I must reiterate what I posted earlier, power does not corrupt. We, in the flesh, are already corrupt. Please read Romans 3 & Jeremiah 17:9. Positions of power only reveal the heart. This is why God says not to give a novice the position of a bishop. (1Timothy 3:6) “Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.” The problem is that we have too many men who started out before they were prepared properly by God. Therefore, they got prideful and continued the ministry in such manner. One thing I can say about all my pastors is that they have always warned me about moving too fast and getting ahead of God’s will.
    As to the church taking on the characteristics of those in leadership, that is usually the case. This is why a church should choose good leadership from the start. Many choose the great personality or great preaching, forgetting that character in leadership are the issues.
    Concerning the “outside safety nets” philosophy, it is not Scriptural. John did not say for the church to go to some other churches or some committee of churches to deal with Diotrephes. (3John 1:9-12) “I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God. Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true.”
    The Apostle said basically, you need to leave the bad leader and follow the good leader. I’ll deal with Diotrephes and how he treated me and my friends, you listen to Demetrius.
    To apply that to your dictatorial IFB pastors, you would have to leave the church and join or start another. If it were a S/s teacher, go to a different class.

    As to design of church facilities or format for services, I do not find the issue dealt with in the Scriptures. 1st Corinthians is dealing with the confusion in their services, not to correct the order of services for those who already do things decent and in an orderly fashion.
    I limit my view not to a bishop only run leadership, but to an autonomous church view.

  259. Richard-My example is simply to demonstrate multiple-folks participating in a service in contrast to what most IFB’s do, with the one guy doing it all. I am not seeing in scripture, anywhere, where church is supposed to be one man standing up and not allowing for anyone else to participate. (hate to say it, but oftentimes this leads to severe boredom)

    I must disagree, I do believe that power corrupts. I have observed it.

  260. @greg
    Greg,
    Here is a good example of God’s way of doing things.
    Nehemiah 8:2-6 “And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month. And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law. And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam. And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people;) and when he opened it, all the people stood up: And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.”
    This is one man reading one Book. He read from a raised pulpit that was made for that purpose, above all the people. Does not sound very exciting by your standards, but God honored it. Ezra was IFB before IFB existed according to your way of thinking a service should be. If preaching is boring, just think about a man reading. Preaching is only boring when our heart is not prepared to hear from God, just like reading the Bible for a fourth of the day would be if our heart is not in tune. How many preachers do you know that speak for three hours non-stop in a service?

    As to the idea of power corrupting, Christ has all power and it brought no corrupting. He could not be corrupted because there was nothing corrupt about him.
    John 14:30 “Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.”
    Luke 1:35; 2Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15 & 7:26; 1Peter 1:19 & 2:22; 1John 3:5-8
    If you have an example of power corrupting someone who is not corrupt, show me. I still believe the Bible, & that our fleshly nature is corrupt.
    James 1:14-16 “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren.”
    The problem is not power, the problem is people. Those whom you observed were just corrupt people, not yielded to the Holy Ghost. Disagree with God’s word if you must. I believe God.

    Many IFB churches have issues, but let us not make the problem something it is not, or put the blame where it is not.

  261. Richard – “Preaching is only boring when our heart is not prepared to hear from God.” This is fundamentalist, legalistic bull. You have demonstrated your true colors with this statement. Some under-educated, non-gifted, IFB, having sex with underage children, redneck, so-callled pastor drones on for an hour, yet it’s my fault for getting bored, because I’m “not right with God.”

    You crossed the line with these comments, you have shown yourself to be the Pharisee we were hoping you weren’t.

    It is just this idiotic type of mentality that has caused so much hurt and heartache, why Steve has so graciously provided a place where this type of grace-less, legalistic junk can be de-bunked and hurting hearts can be healed.

    Your Ezra example was pretty good. I wish that more pitifully prepared IFB ministers would simply read the Word and then sit down and shut up. I use to tell my wife that the reading of the word was the only part that my ex-pastor got right.

    Power does corrupt, all you have to do is go to the nearest mirror and have a look Richard. You have come on here acting as though you are some kind of authority, quoting your scriptures, trying to use them as arrows to hurt others, when it is you that should be listening to those words and letting them do a work in your own prideful, arrogant heart, then, just maybe you would have something to share that could minister grace to others.

    It seems to me that you are a typical IFB grace-killer.

    No Richard “You disagree with God’s word if you must”

  262. Handling God’s Word accurately is essential for those who minister. Only through its being correctly interpreted can it be correctly applied. The disciplines of good hermeneutics (correct method of biblical interpretation) and capable homiletics (clear communication of biblical truth) should be blended together by those who teach God’s Book. Care must be taken, however, to interpret and communicate with grace. when grace is present, there is a spirit of openness, an attitude of compassion, which includes an absence of Bible bashing and dogmatism.

    It is not uncommon for me to meet people who have come out of strict fundamentalist ministries where they were bruised and wounded by a grace killer who presented scripture in such a rapid-fire, harsh manner that they felt beaten by the “letter of the law” rather than led and comforted by the Spirit of liberty. Having come out of such a climate many years ago, I understand whereof I write. “The letter kills,” states Paul. But the Holy Spirit, ministering in a context of freedom mixed with the charm of grace, “gives life.”

    From Chuck Swindoll’ book “The Grace Awakening”

  263. @greg
    Greg,
    Just a few thoughts.
    #1) Are you calling me all those accusations? I never claimed to be the brightest crayon in the box, but under-educated & non-gifted are pretty extreme terms to call a man because he disagrees with your views. I certainly call it slanderous to accuse me of immoral behavior, or to call me a red-neck. (I keep my grass cut low enough so you can see my cars set up on jack-stands).
    #2) What did I say that needs to be debunked? I only gave Bible examples of how Christ, who had all power, was not corrupt, though you think power is the corrupter. To debunk that, you have to claim the Bible to be wrong. Well, I am glad you realized where the authority I claim comes from. “acting as though you are some kind of authority, quoting your scriptures” You claim Chuck Swindoll as your authority. (I guess he is someone I should know, like your last fundamentalist friend, Sam Gipp. I am not familiar with many of the fundamentalist crowd you hang out with.) God says the Scriptures are our authority.
    #3) I guess we agree about a couple of things. 1) The Ezra example is good. 2) Unprepared preachers ought to sit down and shut up.
    #4) Who has power corrupted, that was not corrupt already?
    #5) Who am I trying to hurt? I do know the Word of God is a surgical instrument, and surgery is painful, but I have not intentionally tried to hurt anyone on this site.
    #6) The word of God has a job to do. (2Timothy 3:16-17) “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”
    The preacher has a job to do. (2Timothy 4:2) “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.”
    Reproof & rebuke are not always easy to take, but when the word of God teaches something, I am not to compromise proclaiming it. I also am not to expect the hearer to get it all, so I am to be longsuffering. I have heard men preach, and then again I have heard men drone on. There is a difference, preaching is not boring to the man who is willing to receive with meekness the Word.
    I have fallen to sleep under good preaching sometimes, but that has always been because of not getting good sleep previously, not because I was bored. Preaching speaks to the soul through the Spirit. He is not boring.

  264. Richard – I was not “accusing” you of all of those things, I think you know that, it’s called literary license. I hope none of them apply, but you can bet your last dollar that when you break out the fundiness like you did with the statement “Preaching is only boring when our heart is not prepared to hear from God.” You are gonna get bit, hard!!(woulda have liked to seen a response from Steve on this comment) Can you not see the cockiness, pride, and self-centeredness in that comment. It’s kinda like the statement “I know I’m right, God told me” For me to have to explain it to you instead of of you apologizing speaks volumes! Examine yourself Richard. Where is the humility in this statement? I feel like Paul right here Richard, I’m thinking you should be into the meat, but it appears that you need to go back aways and stay on milk for awhile. You apparently need to develop humility, but coming from a legalistic background those lessons are hard to come by, I know from personal experience. Try some humilty, it’ll look good on you.

    David, Peter, Noah, Saul, Judas, Moses – In no particular order, the preceeding all allowed power to corrupt. You seem to have a decent grasp of bible facts, I’m surprised that you want to think that power doesn’t corrupt, or did I fall into some legalistic trap, and now you will spring it on me. I already know that the flesh is corrupt, yours and mine btw, so what’s your point? Power does corrupt, and it can corrupt anyone of us. I would say from listening to you, that it has made some serious inroads on you.

    I claimed Chuck Swindoll as my authority? Don’t know how much you read, but when someone quotes another on a given matter, it doesn’t mean you claim them as “your authority” it simply means you believe they have something worthwhile to say on the matter. This is tedious dealing with you IFB’s, and growing tiresome. Why? Because the legalists that you are want to pick apart everything, to the point of not even being able to carry on a conversation.

  265. RE: Nehemiah 8:2-6

    This is more like a revival than a regular church service. We get no indication that Ezra was speaking on the Sabbath or that it was a regular weekly occurrence. The scene is reminiscent of Moses reading the Law to the people at Mount Sinai. Apparently, the people stood for five or six hours – from dawn until noon, listening with great attention to the reading of the Scriptures. The wooden platform was erected so that Ezra could be better seen and heard by more people among such a large crowd. Remember they didn’t have fancy pews or sound systems back then. We also get no indication that there was a lectern or pulpit either, but there may have been since the law was probably written on scrolls during that time period and it would be difficult to hold up a scroll to read it for such a long period of time.

    So my point is, to use this passage as an example to follow for our modern church service is a stretch at least and careless twisting of Biblical exegesis at worst.

    Just wanted to share that… please continue the discussion.

  266. @greg

    Greg,
    I will try one more time to explain that Jesus had all power. If it were power that corrupted, as you continuously contend, Jesus would have been corrupted. Explain to me why He was not corrupted by power. I contend, though not contentiously, that it was because He was not corrupted by sin. As you stated in your last post “the flesh is corrupt.” There is my point made by you. The problem is not what power does, but what people are.
    The problem seems that you are angry at me for not falling into your humanistic view that surroundings & situations make the man. I honestly believe that sins (like corruptness in authority) come from a defiled nature, &/or the deceitfulness of sin itself. Power is not a sin. Something that is not corrupt has no power to corrupt. Meditate on this for a while.

    “Can you not see the cockiness, pride, and self-centeredness in that
    comment.” I believe the answer is No. I said nothing about my preaching, it was a general statement. I never tried to get your attention on me through the statement. Maybe you need to define the words cockiness, pride, and self-centeredness for me. My words could have been called “abrupt” or “lacking in grace” if taken wrongly, but cocky, proud, and self-centered, not at all.
    I explained my point about preaching in point #6 of my last post. I may have come across a little more salty than you appreciated in my earlier post, so I tried to remake the order with much more grace but seasoned with salt.
    As to your friend, Chuck Swindoll, I did not disagree with anything he said. Much of it sounds like things I have said & written. Therefore, since your friend and I agree, I would assume you call him a legalist also.
    As to you referring unto Mr. Swindoll and myself as legalists, please explain where I have attempted to bring you into bondage about anything. I have declared more than one time that you can do what you please, if God has no issue with it.

    Your friend in Christ.

  267. @Steve
    Steve,
    Good input.
    My point was that “the people stood for five or six hours – from dawn until noon, listening with great attention to the reading of the Scriptures,” as you stated, and were not bored (listened with great attention). Why? Because they wanted to know what God said.
    The same can be said of preaching. If you respect the preacher, and are convinced he is preaching the Word, it is not boring to those who want to hear from God. This is the application I used the Scriptures to promote.
    “If preaching is boring, just think about a man reading. Preaching is only boring when our heart is not prepared to hear from God, just like reading the Bible for a fourth of the day would be if our heart is not in tune. How many preachers do you know that speak for three hours non-stop in a service?”
    To read into my post more than that is careless twisting and a stretch. (LOL)
    As to how to hold a modern “church” service, I yield to the autonomy of the church. I say this so often I feel like a broken record (33 rpm vinyl). God requires decent and in order, as taught by 1st Corinthians, but has no strict order of services given in the Scriptures. Churches have liberty, at least those who are Baptistic in philosophy.

  268. @Steve
    Steve,
    “We also get no indication that there was a lectern or pulpit either” “Pulpit” is the word chosen by the translators to describe the upraised platform for which to read from. Since the platform was made for reading the Scriptures, the probability of there being a lectern on the pulpit is likely. Like you I can not declare such as a certainty.

  269. I found this today on a site called “Stuff fundies like” I thought it was appropriate.

    All through the years I attended fundamamentalist churches I frequently heard the mantra that “The church is not a building” because God lives in the hearts of believers. This was usually followed by a list of things one couldn’t do in “Gods’ House” such as run, talk too loudly, use pre-recorded music, wear certain types of clothing, and say the words “Gee-Willikers.” God may not live here but apparently He has a bunch of house rules anyway.

    It was not until I was an adult that I began to think about what a “church” is to a group of fundamentalists: it is first and foremost where the head Pastor rules. I’ve seen fundamentalist churches without choirs and without offering plates, and even (as unthinkable as this may be) without blood red carpets, but I’ve never seen one without a single man in charge. In fact, it would seem all three members of the Trinity could very well be missing altogether from the premises but as long as there is that single, strong voice present, there can be a fundy church.

    From the reserved parking space outside to the study filled with personal trophies and on to the special throne on the platform, the entire structure screams that church is not a body of believers, it’s not even the home of believers. It is instead the embodiment of one man’s vision for how things ought to be. From the choice of hymnbooks to the wording of the weekly bulletin. church is coming to hear him talk, to hear him yell, to hear his plans for what will be your future.

    What is church to a fundamentalist? It may look like a group of people united in a common cause but upon closer inspection that cause almost always turns out to be the fulfillment of one man’s dream at other’s expense.

  270. Richard :

    My point was… To read into my post more than that is careless twisting and a stretch. (LOL)

    No Richard – I’m not letting you off that easy. If I didn’t know better I’d think you’re being purposefully deceptive. This is your entire MO. You like to argue for argument’s sake and you’re so good at twisting things around to fit your already established views/beliefs that you don’t even realize you’re doing it.

    Here’s how the conversation progressed…

    Greg stated:

    greg :

    I also don’t see in the scripture “church” being done the way IFB’s “do” church. I am still looking into this, but the whole one-man rule, coming into the sanctuary, all chairs/pews facing fwd to see and hear one man. Listening to a sermon every Sunday by the same man, no one else participating, almost forgot, on a raised platform, over everyone else, behind the sacred desk.

    To which YOU replied:

    Richard :

    Greg,
    Here is a good example of God’s way of doing things.
    Nehemiah 8:2-6… This is one man reading one Book. He read from a raised pulpit that was made for that purpose, above all the people. Does not sound very exciting by your standards, but God honored it. Ezra was IFB before IFB existed according to your way of thinking a service should be. If preaching is boring, just think about a man reading. Preaching is only boring when our heart is not prepared to hear from God, just like reading the Bible for a fourth of the day would be if our heart is not in tune. How many preachers do you know that speak for three hours non-stop in a service?

    Then when I corrected you about this passage you write that I’m twisting what you said and restated your point as if I wouldn’t remember what your original point was. All I had to do is go back up and re-read what you write to see that you’re not following the conversation (or being purposefully deceptive – which one I’m not sure yet). You’ve done this the entire conversation and it’s getting old – probably why Greg is showing frustration.

    You need to be very careful how you proceed Richard. You’re ruining your reputation all by your self by lying and trying to twist the conversation around to your favor anyway that you can. We don’t have to argue much here, you’re shooting yourself in the foot.

  271. Richard :

    “Pulpit” is the word chosen by the translators to describe the upraised platform for which to read from.

    This is again a semantics argument – I was using pulpit as synonymous with lectern – but I think you already knew that (refer to my previous comment about you arguing for argument’s sake).

    But even so the proper translation would be simply “high wooden platform” NOT “pulpit”.

  272. @greg
    Greg,
    My pastor has no reserved parking spot. He parks where he wants. I park where I want. If a parking spot is the issue, I am sorry we are not fundy enough. You need to learn that somethings do not really matter. The Lutheran Pastor two doors down from our facility has a reserved spot. Is he IFB now?
    The Catholics have platforms. Are they IFB? Oh, Please do not question the priest, he has the authority to kick you out of Christ.
    Baptists can run churches as they see fit. The problem is your group of Baptists chose a dictator. Leave Diotrephes and follow Demetrius. Baptists vote on who the pastor is, or at least in all three churches I have been a member. One of which we voted in a dictator, not that we thought he was, but we found out later, and we found out that we could have known if we would have investigated him better. This is unlike denominations who move men around because they are child molestors & such. Oh our pastor won the vote with 100% of all who voted. I did not vote, but being a babe probably would have followed the crowd.

  273. Steve,
    I thought you may have been trying to find fault with my post by dealing with the word “pulpit.” I apologize for such. Being though that you want to correct the KJV, read Noah Webster’s definition of “Pulpit.” “1. An elevated place or inclosed stage in a church, in which the preacher stands. It is called also a desk. 2. In the Roman theater, the pulpitum was the place where the players performed their parts, lower than the scene and higher than the orchestra. 3. A movable desk, from which disputants pronounced their dissertations, and authors recited their works.” Oops! the KJV was not wrong this time.
    Concerning you correcting me, I thought for once you agreed with me. I made my statement “To read into my post more than that is careless twisting and a stretch. (LOL)” in humor. I thought, that was what “LOL” referred to. If I am wrong please forgive me. If I am correct that “LOL” refers to humorous statements, you need to learn to read.
    “Here is a good example of God’s way of doing things” is not saying in any way, shape, or form, that this is “the example” of God’s way of doing things. I was very specific in my wording so as to keep out of debate. Only someone who was looking to debate a point about church services could intentionally read into my comment. I see that, unaware to my thinking of you, that is exactly what you were trying to do.
    Just a thought though, I think we ought to be in revival in all our services, never should they be “regular”; so if the bishop or any other individual read or preached Bible for an extended time, I would not complain. I complain when they do not preach Bible.

  274. Steve – He did it!! He broke out the Webster’s on ya!

    You told our friend, Richard that “he likes to argue for arguments sake, and you’re so good at twisting things around to fit your already established views/beliefs that you don’t even know you’re doing it.”

    Exactly!! I was curious, so I went all the way back to December, his post #28 is when he first started doing this to me, he appears to do it to everyone but he hammered Katie with it, of course she was very capable of putting him in his place. I’m feeling somewhat silly that I didn’t get tougher sooner. Richard didn’t come here to have a conversation, or much less to learn anything, he came here to teach, to share what “real” IFB’s believe, but turns out he’s just the same ol thing repackaged with alot more subtelty (probably misspelled)

    I love your comment “we don’t have to argue much here, you’re shooting yourself in the foot” Can I say “Exactly” again?

    Richard – I hope you are not being “purposely deceptive” but from where I am standing, that appears to be the case.

    Wonder if Richard would post these conversations at his church, would they recognize the deception, or would they cheer a fellow fundamentalist, legalist on, and not care about the antics. The end justifying the means.

    Steve – Before I forget, good find on the Nehemiah, I was getting too aggravated by then to think straight. Btw, found a great definition of Legalism today. “Legalism is when your convictions become my obligation”

  275. Steve & Greg,
    I want to say how much I enjoy these discussions concerning the Bible, and how you allow liberty to disagree.
    Steve – I still appreciate your take on Nehemiah 8, and your reaffirming my comments as correct. (What I said, not what you read into my statements.)
    Greg – I am glad you agreed with Steve and me on Nehemiah.

    As to being purposefully deceptive, I have no reason to be. I have no agenda except to learn what we agree on and what we do not. I have no problem with being wrong. I do take issue when you say the Bible is wrong, but that is one area we will continuously disagree. So far, other than that, I believe we are agree in essence on all things except the source of corruptness in leadership.

    Steve- I do believe you use the term semantics when you see a possible disagreement, when all that is being sought is clarification.

    Greg – I still do not see where Mr. Swindoll and I are legalists, especially since I read the definition you found. I, and I do not believe he, have not ever tried to bring you under obligation to keep our convictions.

    I do have questions about how you believe a pastor should be chosen. Should the church elect? I have always felt this is the best way, but since being on this site (and based upon my personal experience), I have some questions about peoples ability to discern whether a man is qualified. This being said, I oppose the view of some of the brethren who believe that the outgoing pastor is to appoint his successor. Then I also oppose some other church or churches appointing some one over a church. I believe God set it up the Baptist way, church vote. The problem is – you vote, you get what you asked for good or bad. This is why there are so many disqualified pastors in pulpits. The people refused to follow God’s guide lines and investigate the man’s character. How is his family? How are his finances? What is the reputation he has with those who he has been around? Etc.
    Most of the time there is no background check, but a resume’ saying he believes what you believe and got the right education. Then if he can preach like you want, he is in.

    Baptist churches must take personal responsibility for men they bring in and men they send out. Denominations just move men around to where they want, hoping to cover up an immoral act, or improper behavior. Baptist churches vote in men without finding out about them. Our responsibility to choose the right leaders is how we can change Baptist churches. If we accept the status-quo, we are guilty.

    I have said it before, and will say it over and over again, If you can Scripturally find a problem in the church or in its leadership (I am not saying to be nit-picky about things you don’t like.) leave the church. Then join one or start one.

    Greg – If you do not like Webster, use any dictionary of the English language and study the etymology of “Pulpit.” Webster’s is just what my E-Sword program uses. I hope E-Sword is not IFB, it is free.

  276. Steve – I don’t have the patience to do it, maybe you do, or maybe you are finished with Richard. But wouldn’t it be fun to answer this, just like him by twisting everything he says, making him to be agreeing with us, when he’s not, and simple picking, picking picking every little thing he says to death.

    I think he may be a borg or an IFB computer program. Says the sweetest, kindest thing all the while plunging the knife in as deeply as it can go, yet smiling that slick, sickening smile all the while.

    1. He’s just being passive aggressive. I’m not sure if he’s doing it on purpose or if it’s just his personality.

      He’s what I call an unreasonable arguer. He has little idea what he’s talking about (except for the IFB dogma he’s parroting) or how to formulate a good counterargument (he doesn’t even know what the fallacy of arguing semantics is) and he continues to argue his point even when he’s been proven to be wrong (my recent comment to him is case and point, I used his own words to show him he was wrong and his response was “…your reaffirming my comments as correct.”).

      Basically he just argues for the sake of arguing. He’s not really interested in sorting things out to find truth. He has an agenda and nothing will dissuade him from that agenda. He’s typical IFB in that he majors on the minors – not only in beliefs and values, but also in these types of discussions as he distracts from the major flaws of biblical interpretation by focusing on things that really don’t matter (like trying to educate me on the definition of the word Pulpit for example).

      Ultimately though I think he’s just regurgitating what he was taught, yes like a robot, and then denies that he’s doing that. He’s only hurting himself because we can see right through it. I feel sorry for the guy, but I remember what it was like to be that way. I was the same way when I was blinded by the IFB. So no, I’ll point out errors of exegesis but like I told him earlier, I’m not interested in nit picking or arguing over every little thing that comes up. I just don’t have the time.

      I do appreciate you Greg and your resolve. You’ve got such a unique way of looking at things. I’ll put up with people like Richard just to hear what you have to say. I really wish you would reconsider being a contributing author. I think that you’d make a wonderful impact.

  277. @Steve
    Steve,
    Though I recognize this is a conversation between you and Greg, I pray you accept my interjection on this point.
    When we agree, we agree. If I agreed with you or you agreed with me is semantics. I yield to the fact that I agreed with you. I thought you reaffirmed what I stated, but since I was not clear enough (I was for Greg prior to him following your lead), you cleared it up & we agreed. I do not see that as arguing, it is agreement.
    Where do you call agreement argument?

  278. Steve – Thanks for the kind words, and maybe someday I’ll take you up on your offer, but I do feel inadequate at the present.

    I am always blessed by the way you and Bob express things, I feel you both have or display more grace than I do. Katie is more like me, kinda in your face, but I can tell she has quite alot more “grey” matter than I do. As I was looking back through the posts yesterday, I see that she had Richard’s number pretty early on, I’m sure you did as well. Btw, this Richard is the same one that you barred at one time, isn’t he?

    Your point about being “blinded by the IFB” and feeling sorry for Richard is really my motivation in dialoging with him and others that suffer in a legalistic, graceless faith and life. That is why I appreciate this site and what you do for folks who are and have been hurt by this religion disguised as a true faith. It so blinds people to the truth. I know Richard means well, or at least I hope he does, but he has been programmed for so long, that the truth has become obscured by legalistic teaching, to where he can no longer recognize truth. When I was making my points about folks from “all” denominations being able to come a saving knowledge of Christ, he wouldn’t agree, but would want to point out the “problems” they had in their respective “religion.” When I would then point out that the IFB’s had as many problems if not more, he would do what Richard does, and never admit that “Yes, saved Catholics go to heaven!” Why is that so hard for IFB’s? Yes I disagree with lots of catholic beliefs, but like I pointed out to Richard, I disagree with the IFB’s belief in “magical a,b,c repeat after me prayers”

    I’m rehashing aren’t I? I think my time here with Richard is done. I’m not giving up on him, but frankly I’m worn out by him (that reminds me, not sure if it was here or not, but someone pointed out that keep on talking and wearing out your opponent was one of the ploys/antics of the IFB)

    Richard you didn’t win, but you did wear me out. Also let me say I wish you the very best, please read your KJV, but more importantly “listen” to its message. If you only knew what was right over the hill from you, just slightly out of your vision/grasp, you would race to get there, just as the veil was torn into, allowing us into the presence of the Almighty. Grace is just around the corner, Hurry!

  279. “torn in two”

  280. @Richard

    You lost me. I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. We didn’t agree at all. I don’t know how you thought we agreed.

  281. @greg
    “Steve and Richard – Great exchanges! The above “kudos” I actually sent to the wrong person!!! Richard good work here!!”
    “Richard – Still liking what you’re saying. (mostly/smiles)”
    “Your Ezra example was pretty good.”

    I just take a man at his word.

    “When I was making my points about folks from “all” denominations being able to come a saving knowledge of Christ, he wouldn’t agree, but would want to point out the “problems” they had in their respective “religion.” When I would then point out that the IFB’s had as many problems if not more, he would do what Richard does, and never admit that “Yes, saved Catholics go to heaven!””

    “I said, “I am not saying that there are no “Christians” in these denominations, but that their beliefs are contrary to Christ.” You said, “Every Catholic and Church of Christ member that genuinely calls upon the Lord for salvation will bethere praising God.” This reads like we are in agreement.”

    Again I just read what is posted. You must have missed this post.
    These are just a few quotes from the man who just said,

  282. @Steve

    You said, “Apparently, the people stood for five or six hours – from dawn until noon, listening with great attention to the reading of the Scriptures.”

    I said,”Steve, Good input.
    My point was that “the people stood for five or six hours – from dawn until noon, listening with great attention to the reading of the Scriptures,” as you stated, and were not bored (listened with great attention). Why? Because they wanted to know what God said.”

    I did not say you meant, I was in agreement with what you said.
    That is called agreement.

  283. @Steve

    “He’s just being passive aggressive. I’m not sure if he’s doing it on purpose or if it’s just his personality.” I have not dealt with my psychology books lately, but when checking on symptoms of being passive aggressive, I fail in every aspect. I am overly analytical, not ambiguous in my thought process, or writing method. That is why I have to so often explain that what I said may have come across harsher than intended. I am never late intentionally, neither do I make excuse for my failures (which I admit to having). I do not forget things conveniently.
    If you are not in psychology by as a profession, do not go in to it. Enjoy life, it is too short.

    You are a real blessing to my heart. If you have not seen Greg’s bluegrass group, and you like bluegrass, it is worth watching.

  284. Richard :

    You said, “Apparently, the people stood for five or six hours – from dawn until noon, listening with great attention to the reading of the Scriptures.”

    I said,”Steve, Good input.
    My point was that “the people stood for five or six hours – from dawn until noon, listening with great attention to the reading of the Scriptures,” as you stated, and were not bored (listened with great attention). Why? Because they wanted to know what God said.”

    I did not say you meant, I was in agreement with what you said.
    That is called agreement.

    You need to go back up and re-read the conversation. Taking one or two sentences out of context that seem similar to what we both said doesn’t mean we agree.

  285. @Steve
    Steve,
    I believe we already had this discussion, where I explained that you read into my statements something that was not said, neither was meant.The same thing I did, according to you, about your trying to explain away “Pulpit.”
    Nothing else you said had to do with the context of the Scripture, just a clarification of what the context was not. Everyone knows there were not padded pews or sound systems as we know them to be.

    I may not be the brightest candle shining, but I did learn to read. I am not a psychologist, so I can not analyze effectively everything someone writes by reading into statememnts.

    1. Richard, I’m done with the pissing contest. I refuse to allow you to continue twisting things around and drawing me into the nit picking that distracts from the issues. If you want to have a discussion then pick a topic (other than me) and discuss it. Otherwise go away.

      I do enjoy life. I don’t know why you implied that I don’t, but I find it pretty offensive (although it is a great example of the IFB way of thinking, as if to say if we don’t think like you then we must not enjoy life). This is my ministry that God has called me to do and I love doing it. I even enjoy putting up with people like you because it provides such a shining example of what I write about.

      So, here’s a good topic to move on to if you’d like. I’m curious to know why you advise to not go into psychology as a profession?

  286. @Steve
    Steve,
    Being that you are not to be the topic, it is impossible to discuss why I advise not to go into psychology as a profession. My statement was directed at a person not a profession. “If you are not in psychology as a profession, do not go in to it. Enjoy life, it is too short.”
    Sentence structure: “you” is the subject not “psychology as a profession.”
    “‘You’ do not go into it” is the inferred statement, not “Nobody” should go into it. The same is in the next sentence, and you understood it. “‘You’ enjoy life …”
    You have a tendency of reading into peoples statements. “Enjoy life …” is an exhortation and encouragement, not an accusation that you were not enjoying life. Where I am at we say, “Have a good day” to encourage someone along on their journey, not because we think they are having a bad day. These are just encouraging statements, no more or no less.
    Therefore, enjoy life and have a good day.

    Next Topic? Why do we not discuss which comes first corruption or power? That is what Greg asked for your input about. He was totally content with my answer to the subject we can not agree whether we agree or not about.

    1. I need closure to the psychology issue before we move on to a new topic because you lost me again. What do you mean by “If you are not in psychology as a profession, do not go in to it.” then if your statement was “directed at a person not a profession”? Are you giving me advice or being sarcastic??? I’m confused.

  287. @Steve
    Steve,
    I would say I was being a bit sarcastic towards you based upon your psycho-analyzation of me. I probably have a weird sense of humor, but I thought it funny that when I looked up the symptoms of passive aggressive I failed to meet any of the criteria. Hyper-analytical might be a characteristic of my personality. Choleric Sanguine would be my temperament according to some tests. My wife’s former pastor’s wife, Debbie Pearl, describes me a a Command type man. I have taken so many analyzation tests for personality types, strengths, & weaknesses, and you are the first to ever consider me as possibly passive aggressive in behavior or personality.

    1. I was referring to your method of communication not your behavior or personality. Passive-aggressive is a communication style. I have no idea what your personality is nor do I care to be honest since it has no bearing on having a discussion – but having a discussion with someone who is passive-aggressive in their communication style can be extremely frustrating.

      Maybe you’re the one with the “tendency of reading into people’s statements”?! If you need clarification please ask for it rather than make assumptions.

  288. @Steve
    “He’s just being passive aggressive. I’m not sure if he’s doing it on purpose or if it’s just his personality.”
    That is why I used a little humor to deal with your statement. I looked at my previous posts, none met the criteria of passive aggressive.

    “If you need clarification please ask for it rather than make assumptions.” Good Advice. I was telling my wife how your last post was the first time anyone asked for clarification in a long time instead of making assumptions.

    1. Yes, people with certain personality types are prone to the passive-aggressive communication style (that doesn’t mean that you have the passive-aggressive personality disorder) – others do it on purpose. Those who do it on purpose are usually passive-aggressive to either deflect or to try and distract their opponent/discussion partner (which you’ve effectively done with Greg).

      It doesn’t really surprise me that you don’t see your passive-aggressive communication. Most people can’t recognize their own communication style – someone has to point it out to them. I think I’d be more worried if you could see it, because that would mean that you’re doing it on purpose.

      You just admitted to using sarcasm with me. That was being passive aggressive. Saying I was “psycho-analyzing” you is being passive-aggressive (if you knew what psycho-analysis is you’d know that that isn’t what I was doing). Another example is your passive-aggressive comments about being “nit-picky” in comment #37 in response to my statement that I wasn’t going get caught up in all the nit picking. You’ve also been sarcastic and passive-aggressive with Greg numerous times (I don’t feel like taking the time to go back and find them all right now).

      It’s been said that “sarcasm is the refuge of the weak.” Just say what you need to say. Why be sarcastic? don’t beat around the bush. Discussions like this work best when we can be assertive and say what we mean. No communication is perfect, but if you cut out all the nonsense then we might be able to make progress.

      Now can we move on to something worth talking about rather than just bitch about the way each other communicates?

  289. @Steve
    Steve,
    You mean nobody is allowed to call me names that they cannot back up. IFB is fair, legalist is not, unless Greg’s definition differs from yours.
    You mean when I think we agree you are not planning to find a way to prove we disagree, even after I agree with you.
    You mean this goes both ways, or is it a one way thing, because of the assumption that all IFB is the enemy. I am not your enemy.
    This is where the problem seems to be.
    I use sarcasm, to lighten up the mood sometimes, such as when I said my grass was cut so people could see my cars on jack stands, and other times when people made derogatory remarks inferring a whole movement, when all of us must admit that our experience is limited.
    As to whether sarcasm is a legitimate form of proper communication, the jury is still out by most in the field of psychology. It has been used historically as an effective form of discourse, though sometimes there is a danger of people not taking things in a humorous way. I will attempt to use no more.

    Now to my two questions. Does power corrupt, or does power reveal an area of corruption in a person? How should a church find a pastor? I believe I tried to move to this earlier in one of my posts. One more question. If a church votes in a pastor and agrees to give him extreme unchecked authority and he turns out to be a Diotrephes, what should they do, and who is at fault?

    1. Richard :

      You mean nobody is allowed to call me names that they cannot back up. IFB is fair, legalist is not, unless Greg’s definition differs from yours.
      You mean when I think we agree you are not planning to find a way to prove we disagree, even after I agree with you.
      You mean this goes both ways, or is it a one way thing, because of the assumption that all IFB is the enemy. I am not your enemy.
      This is where the problem seems to be.

      You lost me again. I don’t understand the connection of this to what we’re talking about. I also don’t understand your use of the words “you mean”. Are you asking me what I mean or are you trying to tell me what you think I mean?

      I don’t view the IFB as my enemy. I don’t view you as my enemy.

      Richard :

      I use sarcasm, to lighten up the mood sometimes, such as when I said my grass was cut so people could see my cars on jack stands, and other times when people made derogatory remarks inferring a whole movement, when all of us must admit that our experience is limited.
      As to whether sarcasm is a legitimate form of proper communication, the jury is still out by most in the field of psychology. It has been used historically as an effective form of discourse, though sometimes there is a danger of people not taking things in a humorous way. I will attempt to use no more.

      I’m fine with sarcasm. I was just pointing out that you’re use of sarcasm smacks of passive aggressive communication. Sarcasm is a great form of humor. I love sarcastic humor. But this isn’t a comedy shtick so your sarcasm comes off as inappropriate and passive aggressive. In both formal debates and informal discussions sarcasm is generally recognized as a logical fallacy since it doesn’t do anything to validate or prove your argument. If you make a logical fallacy I’m going to point it out since it’s an error in reasoning which can lead to errors in beliefs and views.

      It doesn’t really matter to me if psychology recognizes sarcasm as a “legitimate form of proper communication”. I’m not sure why you keep bringing up psychology. These are philosophical issues. I think you may be confusing psychology with philosophy. These are philosophical issues not psychological issues. Now you may have a mental health issue which could be affecting your ability to reason properly, but these types of discussions are centered around philosophical underpinnings and really have nothing to do with psychology. Again, I’m just pointing out that your use of sarcasm is inappropriate and feels passive aggressive in this format. It’s annoying and does nothing to validate or prove your argument.

      You should study the work of William Lane Craig. He’s a brilliant Christian expert in philosophical reasoning and debates secular experts using his skills in this area. I would also recommend Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul by J.P. Moreland

      OK so let me know when you’re done with this line of discussions and then we can move on to your other questions. I only do one topic at a time.

  290. @Steve
    Steve,
    Move on to the next point. I asked the questions.

    Concerning the statements when I wrote, “You mean,” I should have used a question mark.

    As to sarcasm, I said I will attempt to use no more. I thought that ended that discussion.

    “Now to my two questions. Does power corrupt, or does power reveal an area of corruption in a person? How should a church find a pastor? I believe I tried to move to this earlier in one of my posts. One more question. If a church votes in a pastor and agrees to give him extreme unchecked authority and he turns out to be a Diotrephes, what should they do, and who is at fault?”

    1. Does power corrupt or does power reveal an area of corruption in a person?

      I think it can be both. I think that power can corrupt, but I also think that it can reveal an area of corruption that was already present.

      On one hand I agree with Greg that power corrupts, but I would add the caveat that it CAN corrupt. It doesn’t always, but it can. It’s been said that “with great power comes great responsibility”. If a person can’t handle the responsibility of the power then it could corrupt him/her. Some people who come into positions of power have no intention of abusing their power but will end up doing things against their values that they wouldn’t have ever thought they would do. So yes, power can corrupt people.

      On the other hand I agree with you. Some people are already corrupt and seek positions of power to exploit that corruption.

      But I think for the most part, if someone were to gain a position of power it could corrupt them – not always, but the temptations are much greater for someone in a position of power.

      So really it doesn’t make much of a difference. If a pastor is corrupt, what difference does it make if power corrupted him/her or if it reveals corruption that’s already there? The point is simply that power causes corruption, whether it’s a new feature or if it awakens a natural bent towards corruption.

      To complicate things, many people become drunk with power. Power can be an addiction for some people. Others can handle power properly. I think that human nature values power because it gives us a sense of control related to our environment. We often feel out of control because of our human limitations. Having a little power can give us greater control over our environment which can change our perspectives and ideas about life.

      This isn’t a black and white issue so I don’t think there really is a clear answer. It’s different for each situation and person.

      How should a church find a pastor?

      I don’t really have an opinion on this yet. At this time my focus isn’t on church policies or how individual churches function. It’s on my to-do list though. At this time I really don’t think that the way we do church in today’s society is biblical.

      If a church votes in a pastor and agrees to give him extreme unchecked authority and he turns out to be a Diotrephes, what should they do, and who’s at fault?

      Again, I don’t know how to answer this. These are issues that I haven’t been able to sort through yet. I think at this point I would be more interested in why a church even has a voting system to bring in a pastor and if that’s biblical or not.

  291. @Steve
    Steve,
    This first question of whether we believe power corrupts or whether power reveals corruption comes to the heart of the issues. Is man by the fall prone toward excessiveness in behavior, or is it environment that makes men what they are? Is a man a sinner by natural birth, or is he a sinner only because he sins?
    My view is that very few men understand our sinful nature, therefore do not put protections up in their life to prevent excesses. Many think they are stronger than we are.
    My example is what I heard about Billy Graham. He had men he held himself accountable to when he travelled, and tried never to place himself in situations that could lead to temptations (such things as not being alone with females or being the only one to handle finances, etc.). He had policies in place for how to handle different situations, for the express purpose of protection of the ministry he had been given. Could he have not protected himself and gotten along fine? Maybe, but he understood the sinful nature of man, and knew that he could fall, so he took heed to help prevent such.
    Others whom I have known, not all being IFB, have placed themselves in compromising situations and have fallen. Why would a man counsel behind closed doors, without witnesses, or tapes, especially if it is with a woman? Why would a pastor handle the finances? Some would say because they want to play with temptation. I say many times it is because they think they can stand. They think they have attained. They somehow believe that the “old man” has been eradicated by the new nature. I guess they do not believe the Bible they preach, especially Romans 6&7.
    These men seem to forget that God did not save this old fleshly nature which is already corrupt.
    This is my whole reason for declaring that power does not corrupt. We, in the flesh, are corrupt. (Romans 7:18) “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.” The context is about how the law was a revealer of what is really inside. The law did not make us evil or good, it just revealed. My observation is that the same is true about power. That is why I conclude the same as the apostle, that the only way to have victory over the flesh is yielding to Jesus Christ’s lordship. (Romans 7:24-25) “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.”

  292. @Steve
    Steve,
    How should a church find a pastor? & If a church votes in a pastor and agrees to give him extreme unchecked authority and he turns out to be a Diotrephes, what should they do, and who’s at fault?
    I know you say you have no opinion, nor answer on these yet, but I believe these are a key to the root of what makes an IFB or any other church. Autonomy of the church is an essential issue. The idea of “Is the IFB a cult,” cultish, or just a movement that has been maligned by some idiots who overstepped Scriptural positions, and misused and abused power, is all wrapped up in how a church should function. Therefore, I am asking for grace and patience while I propose some thoughts. Please, straighten me out where needed.
    Church polity all comes from what ones view of the church is.
    Let’s look at three basic views of church governing. The Romanist view – One universal church under the headship of Christ on earth by His vicar, the pope. All power is given to the pope, and he has the authority to rule over the church by telling them when, where, and how each and every congregation is to operate. The Protestant denominational view – One mystical universal church under the headship of Christ having no headship on earth. Our group starts churches, thus has authority over when, where, and how each congregation operates. We move pastors and they can move up in the organization. The individual congregation has little say over method of service or operation. The Baptist non-denominational view – There is coming a day when the whole of true believers will come together in unified faith in heaven (eternally this is already so). On earth, each called out assembly or “church” has free right to govern itself, independently of any earthly hierarchy (Christ is the head of each church). Doctrines are agreed upon by the church. Policies are agreed on by the church. The expected idea of this philosophy is that those who unite with these assemblies will each spend time with the Lord as to what to do & how things are to be done.
    I know using only three categories is simplifying the matter a bit, being that there are churches that hold to universalism of the protestant view mixed with the non-denominational view of individuality, even among IFB. I differentiate these as members of “the church” eternal, in heaven, and mystical from being members of “a church” earthly and effective.
    The idea of autonomy of a church is of utmost importance in this day where we have no letters written on how to run a denomination, or how to anoint an apostle to office. God dealt with two offices: the bishop/elder/pastor/overseer and the deacon, and both of these were within the church/assembly. In the first century, under authority of an apostle, we find men placing men into leadership in the churches without the church necessarily being a part of the process. (Titus 1:5) “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:” Since there is no such thing as apostolic succession, we must conclude that after this time period God had another plan of action, a plan that included the churches.

    I am going somewhere with this and will continue later, if the Lord permits.

    1. You say that power doesn’t corrupt since we are already corrupt, but then you go on to give examples of people who have been corrupted and an example of someone who has set boundaries so he wouldn’t get corrupted. I’m so confused on where you stand with this. It seems to me that you’ve disproved your own point.

      You asked if power corrupts, not if power causes sin. Sin and corruption aren’t necessarily synonymous. “Sinner” is our condition, corrupt is a consequence of our sin.

      I don’t really understand why this is such a big issue for you. For me this is like splitting hairs. Does it really matter if power is just a revealer of what’s already in the heart? It was power (and not something else) that did the revealing so saying that power corrupts is just saying the same thing in a different way. It’s just a different way of saying the same thing. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” is just a saying that means that if it weren’t for power, a person wouldn’t have sinned in a particular way.

      Also, being “prone to excessive behaviors” is vastly different from having excessive behaviors (e.g., until someone commits murder they aren’t a murderer). The same is true for corruption.

      You can spare me the lecture on church government. I’m not interested. I only recognize the one true church – the body of believers – and, strictly for logistical purposes, a meeting together of local believers. The type of church polity found in most denominations of our society isn’t biblical.

  293. @Steve
    Steve,
    I never gave one example of a man corrupted by power, only how a corrupt man protected himself from himself, and how others did not protect themselves and fell into corrupt actions. The actions come from what is within. Only a man yielded to the Scriptures assessment of himself, and the Spirit’s guidance can do anything but corruptness. (Isaiah 64:6a) “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.” That was Paul’s point in Romans 6&7, Jeremiah’s declaration in 17:9, James’ view in 1:13-16, and Jesus’ confirmation of Matthew 7:17-18 “Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” The context is men, especially false prophets.
    This issue is not splitting hairs. It is, to follow along with your analogy, the hair. Is the Bible correct about why we produce corrupt works, or is man correct? You seem to be inferring that this is not important from my understanding of your statements.

    You said “You can spare me the lecture on church government. I’m not interested. I only recognize the one true church – the body of believers – and, strictly for logistical purposes, a meeting together of local believers. The type of church polity found in most denominations of our society isn’t biblical.”
    “At this time I really don’t think that the way we do church in today’s society is biblical.”
    “I think at this point I would be more interested in why a church even has a voting system to bring in a pastor and if that’s biblical or not.”

    As to who calls each assembly a church and divides them by assemblies, it is God who did that. 37 times in the NT He uses the word “churches.” This would imply that he recognizes each of them individually and not just as part of a whole.
    As to church government, I was not attempting to lecture you. I was going somewhere. I am trying to understand who determines how a church is to “do church” since we have no direct biblical mandate. I believe it to be each church has liberty, unless they violate the Scriptures. Therefore, it is easy to say the way we do church “isn’t biblical,” but it is hard to say it is wrong. This leads me to my next question. What is wrong with how a church does church? (If we can stay within IFB churches it would be good, since we are both familiar with the basic operations of many of them.)

    1. What you’re saying about the “power corrupts” statement sounds very much like the doctrine of total depravity. Is that the underlying topic here? Is the “power corrupts” discussion just a front for a discussion about the doctrine of total depravity?

      …fell into corrupt actions.

      I still don’t see the difference between “falling into corrupt actions” and being corrupted by power. It’s just a different way of saying the same thing to me.

      I think you may be trying to ascribe a spiritual meaning to a non-spiritual phrase. This phrase has nothing to do with the total depravity of mankind. It’s simply a quote to illustrate that there are things in our lives that will cause us to lose sight of our moral compass and bring out our sinful tendencies. That’s it. I think you’re reading too much into it and over spiritualizing it.

      Is the Bible correct about why we produce corrupt works, or is man correct?

      This sounds like a trap question to me. No matter how I answer this question it comes out in your favor. I think the better question is: How do we correctly interpret what the Bible says about this issue?

      This isn’t as cut and dry as you’re trying to make it. This is a very personal and individual issue and it’s different for each person and each situation. It’s between the individual and God alone. It’s not for us to decide in blanket, all or nothing statements. We could each give scriptural support for our opposing views, but that gets us nowhere. So the unofficial answer is… it’s up to the individual and their unique situation to pray about it and determine what’s right for them at that time in their life. You’re trying to make everyone fit into your little cookie cutter view of this. You can’t put God in your little IFB box and make everyone fit into it. Sorry but a personal relationship with God doesn’t work that way.

      You seem to be inferring that this is not important from my understanding of your statements.

      I see the topic as important, but I don’t see the importance of trying to be so argumentative about something that’s just a simple phraseology difference. What if we keep the phrase to its original wording: “Power TENDS to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Is that more palatable to you? What if we quoted William Pitt who essentially said the same thing when he said: “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.”. How does that quote sit with you?

      These quotes are about the tendency of humans to lose our moral footing when we’re given power. History – including biblical history – has proven that. That’s it, nothing more. If you are viewing these quotes through the filter of the total depravity doctrine then you probably won’t understand what we’re trying to say with this.

      I think our time would be better spent on a collaborative effort to try and flesh through the underlying issues here rather than banter back and forth about some random quote.

      Let’s finish this discussion before moving onto the church discussion please. I only do one topic at a time.

  294. @Steve
    Steve,
    I am not a proponent of the terminology of Total Depravity of Man. I say this not to debate what appears to be semantics, but to stay away from being put into the category of being a Calvinist. Total depravity of the flesh is actually the better way of describing a proper Biblical view. The Bible teaches total deadness of the Spirit, and total desperation of the soul.
    As to why this power discussion is an important issue, you put the proverbial cart before the horse. “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” is another such question that people say is semantics and does not matter. Yet, to give the improper answer leads down a slippery slope toward evolutionary theology. It is a slippery slope when we reason beyond what saith the Scripture. To say that power is the corrupter, when God points out clearly that our flesh is corrupt already, is to add human reasoning to declared truth. (The word corrupt is used in describing the tree in Matthew 7, but is synonymous with the terminology and teaching of every verse I presented. As of yet, there has been no Scripture given to back “power” as the corrupter. Greg did present the case of men with a corrupt nature misusing power, but none of which the power corrupted.)
    You said, “I think you may be trying to ascribe a spiritual meaning to a non-spiritual phrase.” I say I am trying to keep us with the lines of God’s revealed truth. I am not trying to ascribe a spiritual meaning to a non-spiritual phrase. I am in conflict with what appears to be a phrase contrary to Scripture, therefore being incorrect, even if Jack Hyles or J. Frank Norris said it.
    You, I, and Greg would all agree that power when misused can be an evident manifestation & magnifier of the corrupt nature. We would even agree that it possibly causes corruption to grow (probably not the correct word, but I think you understand my point), but to place it as the source would seem to conflict with the declared word of God. I say this not to argue or debate, but because my mind cannot grasp what seems to be extra Scriptural revelation that seems to be in conflict with what I know the Bible to say.
    Even in discussions like this, or in preaching, or teaching, there are statements made that are not clear in meaning, and as you have pointed out at times, need to be corrected. The original statement that started this line of discussion is such a statement. What is really meant by these “power corrupts men” statements? Only context, which was never presented, can answer such. The statements are incorrect outside of context no matter how we try to spin them.
    It is time to move on. We could go back and forth, and unless there is Scripture to explain some other view, I will stick with the narrow minded view. I am open to views outside of Scripture when I do not have Scripture for my views such as on how to “do church” in every detail.

    1. So you’re saying that this discussion really is about the “power corrupts…” phrase and isn’t about the doctrine of total depravity (or total depravity of the flesh – whatever you want to call it)?

      What do you mean by “evolutionary theology”?

      I think you’re making a mountain out of an ant hill with this. One can comfortably believe that power corrupts while at the same time believe that mankind has a fleshly side that’s corrupt already by sin nature. The two aren’t necessarily in conflict.

      We aren’t saying that power is THE corruptor, we’re just saying that power tends to corrupt in the sense that it can cause some people to lose sight of their moral compass and make mistakes. I don’t disagree with you that the flesh is corrupt already. I’m saying that you’re misinterpreting the quote that power corrupts and making it say something it doesn’t say.

      Corrupt is in the verb form in the “power corrupts…” quote. You’re trying to view it as a noun. Another way of saying it would be “Power tends to destroy the integrity of a person.” How does that sit with you? If we drop the word “corrupt” can you live with the idea that power can be the conduit that leads someone (I purposefully avoided the word “make”) to do something that reduces their integrity? So the quote could say: “Power tends to be the conduit that could lead someone to do something that reduces his/her integrity and absolute power tends to be the conduit that could lead someone to do something that absolutely reduces his/her integrity.” How does that feel?

      No one has made the claim that power is “the source” of the corruption (except you). You aren’t paying attention to what we’re saying.

      You haven’t given any “scriptural truths” regarding this issue. You just picked a few passages and pulled them out of context and used them to fit your view of this issue. I could just as easily do the same thing, but I’m trying to not lower myself to that level.

      To see “scriptural truth” where there is none is just as much an error as not relying on the scriptural truths that are there.

      but because my mind cannot grasp what seems to be extra Scriptural revelation that seems to be in conflict with what I know the Bible to say…

      This disgusts me to be honest. I can’t believe this is coming from a pastor. Do you realize how pious and arrogant that sounds?

      God gave us reasoning abilities. It’s not an accident that we have logic and reason. God wants us to use our brains to think about these issues and our reasoning abilities to wrestle with them. I would encourage you to study the works of William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland. They use reasoning abilities all the time to understand “extra scriptural” issues. I’d much rather use my reasoning abilities than robotically follow “extra scriptural” teachings found in the IFB.

      No, I think the problem is not that your “mind cannot grasp what seems to be ‘extra Scriptural revelation’”, but that you simply refuse to see anything other than what you already have established in your mind. That’s sad to me.

      The original statement that started this line of discussion is such a statement. What is really meant by these “power corrupts men” statements? Only context, which was never presented, can answer such.

      I’ve presented the context for you. Greg asked me to fill in the blanks which I’ve been doing. I’ve answered the question of what is meant by the “power corrupts…” statements many times and in many different ways, but you don’t seem to be getting it. I’m not sure why. I don’t know how to explain it more clearly than what I’ve already said.

  295. @Steve

    “Corrupt is in the verb form in the “power corrupts…” quote. You’re trying to view
    it as a noun. Another way of saying it would be “Power tends to destroy the
    integrity of a person.” How does that sit with you? If we drop the word “corrupt”
    can you live with the idea that power can be the conduit that leads someone (I
    purposefully avoided the word “make”) to do something that reduces their integrity?
    So the quote could say: “Power tends to be the conduit that could lead someone to do
    something that reduces his/her integrity and absolute power tends to be the conduit
    that could lead someone to do something that absolutely reduces his/her integrity.”
    How does that feel?”

    I never saw “corrupts” as a noun. I saw the statements with “power” as the noun and the subject of the sentence.
    The best illustration of truth is in your statement that describes power as a conduit. Just like in electrical work, a conduit is not electricity, it is an avenue of travel. In the statement “power corrupts” power is the electrical current not the conduit.
    God gave us reasoning abilities, not to reason away what is said, but to reasonably apply what He says. Reasoning is also for us to try to work out things that are not clearly laid out in the Scriptures, like for instance how a church should operate. This that we have been dealing with is not an extra Scriptural issue but a direct Scriptural truth.
    As to asking, “How does that feel?” My feelings were never an issue. What is right Scripturally was my issue. This is what I thought you would want from an IFB man, no adding or subtracting from the Scripture. It is certainly what I would desire from someone who would oppose the IFB movement.
    ” I’d much rather use my reasoning abilities than robotically follow “extra scriptural” teachings found in the IFB.” I am glad we have another area of agreement. I do not, to the best of my knowledge follow any teachings of the church I attend robotically. I may follow direct orders, and exhortations from Scripture robotically, but that is not the church but God’s words.

    Can we move on now?

  296. @Steve
    Steve,
    To your question, “What do you mean by “evolutionary theology”?”
    Evolutionary theology is a term that became popular during the last few years as the intelligent design theory was proposed and debated by some creationists. It is basically the repackaging of theistic evolution and other faith based (certainly not science by definition) evolutionary theories. Basically, it is just another religious view that mingles the holy and the profane in the area of God’s creation.
    Creationism believes in a mature earth, where what was created only evolves and adapts within “kind” over relatively short time spans, as you know. Evolutionary views (even theistic) believe in adaptation beyond “kind” over an extensive time period.
    I was not trying to move into a discussion on the philosophies or religions of evolutionist. I have no interest in going there until I know about what is wrong about how we “do church” in our society. I actually think we may see similarities in our views, though details may differ due to life experiences and personalities, which are things that people have to deal with anytime there is not direct mandate. That maybe why God is for autonomy of the churches and individual soul liberty.

    1. I never saw “corrupts” as a noun. I saw the statements with “power” as the noun and the subject of the sentence.

      Sorry I meant adjective not noun. The adjective form of corrupt means to be guilty or tainted or infected. The verb form of corrupt means to alter for the worse. You’re viewing the “power corrupts…” quote as if power is the cause of the corruption (adjective). In actually the “power corrupts…” quote is supposed to mean the verb form of corrupt where corrupt means simply to alter for the worse.

      You’re entire argument is centered around the false impression that power is THE corruptor even after we said multiple times that that isn’t what it means or even what we mean by using that quote. We are telling you that you’re mistaken in interpreting the meaning of that quote, but you refuse to acknowledge it. You simply hand wave it and make another argument that basically amounts to nothing more than “your wrong”.

      This quote could also mean that it corrupts someone’s view of the person in power. Not that it corrupts the person, but just the subordinate’s view of the person in power. For example, lets say I have a friend and my opinion of him is very high. He later gets put in a place of power and I see him abusing that power. My opinion of him is thus corrupted as a result of him being in a position of power. That’s another way of looking at the quote.

      Human nature is corrupt (guilty, tainted, infected), we both agree on that. Power corrupts (alters for the worse what’s already corrupt), you refuse to acknowledge that. See the difference? I don’t know why I’m wasting my time trying to explain it yet another way when I know you’ll just continue to ignore it and refuse to see it any other way than your way.

      The best illustration of truth is in your statement that describes power as a conduit. Just like in electrical work, a conduit is not electricity, it is an avenue of travel. In the statement “power corrupts” power is the electrical current not the conduit.

      No, that’s what we’ve been trying to tell you. Power is just the conduit NOT the current. You’re making it be the current and I’m not sure why – ego perhaps or stubbornness? But the idea behind the quote is that power is simply the conduit. That’s the truth of the statement whether you believe it or not.

      God gave us reasoning abilities, not to reason away what is said, but to reasonably apply what He says.

      Agreed. I never argued that we are to use our reasoning abilities to “reason away what is said” and that’s not what we’re doing.

      Reasoning is also for us to try to work out things that are not clearly laid out in the Scriptures, like for instance how a church should operate.

      Agreed, except you are trying to put something in scripture that isn’t there. The “power corrupts…” quote isn’t in scripture so we are using our reasoning to work it out (or at least I am, you just continue to insist that it’s “clearly laid out in Scripture”).

      This that we have been dealing with is not an extra Scriptural issue but a direct Scriptural truth.

      No, we’ve been dealing with a quote about power. That quote isn’t in the scripture so we are discussing its implications for the Christian. You asked me: Does power corrupt or does power reveal an area of corruption in a person? I gave you an answer and you turned it into a twisted argument.

      The “power corrupts…” quote is an extra scriptural issue since it’s not in the scripture. You’re trying to fit it in the scripture, but I don’t know why. I’m still waiting to hear “scriptural truth” about this issue. The “power corrupts…” quote is not in scripture so we are using our reasoning abilities to figure it out (or at least I am – I’m not sure what you’re doing).

      As to asking, “How does that feel?” My feelings were never an issue. What is right Scripturally was my issue.

      “How does that feel?” is a cultural idiom. In other words “What do you think about that?” (somehow I think you already know that but are yet again arguing just to argue). I wasn’t asking about your feelings. I don’t really care about your feelings.

      If you’re interested in what’s “right scripturally” then why don’t you use scripture to back up what you are saying? You say you’re interested in scriptural truths, but all you ever do is pick apart what’s said and argue about it. The only scripture you’ve provided are some random passages pulled out of context that support your view of this.

      This is what I thought you would want from an IFB man, no adding or subtracting from the Scripture. It is certainly what I would desire from someone who would oppose the IFB movement.

      I have no expectations from you – except maybe for you to show a little respect, but I’m not holding my breath.

      But that’s the thing, you ARE adding to the scriptures. You are taking your opinions about a matter and pretending that they’re “scriptural truths” when they really aren’t.

      You know, for a man that claims that his mind “can’t grasp extra scriptural” issues you sure do have a lot of opinions about them.

      I do not, to the best of my knowledge follow any teachings of the church I attend robotically.

      But if someone pointed out that you do would you acknowledge it or would you continue to insist that you’re following scriptural truths?

      You see, this is the problem we’re having. The scripture isn’t black and white about everything so what someone sees as “scriptural truth” someone else might deny as “scriptural truth”. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, that’s why it’s called a PERSONAL relationship with Christ. God wants us to wrestle with these issues so we formulate a set of personal convictions and preferences based on where we are in the sanctification process. By trying to force an idea on me as “scriptural truth” when it’s really just a personal conviction, you’re refusing to acknowledge my personal relationship with Christ. It may be “scriptural truth” for you that power doesn’t corrupt (although I still don’t know why), but it’s not for me. You heavily promoted the idea of free will with Greg, but when it comes down to it you really don’t believe that – or at least your actions don’t match your words.

      There are absolutes in the Bible, I don’t deny that. But there are also areas of the Bible that aren’t clearly defined. We run into problems like we’re having when someone (you) insists that a personal conviction is a “scriptural truth”.

      We do our best to formulate convictions and preferences about those issues that aren’t clearly defined based on our personal walk with Christ. The problem I have is when someone, like you, takes a personal conviction they have about something that’s not clearly spelled out in scripture and promotes that conviction/preference as an absolute truth. It seems to me that this is what you are doing with this issue.

      Be honest, when you asked me that question where you really wanting to have a discussion about it or were you just wanting to know where I stood on the issue so that you could bait me and try to convince me that your convictions about this issue are correct? If the latter, then you’ve done nothing but be deceptive.

      You claim that you know the “scriptural truth” regarding this issue, but I’ve yet to see any. All I’ve seen are a few passages pulled out of context and used to fit your argument.

      Can we move on now?

      No, I’m not ready to move on. I need closure to this issue. I’m not going to allow you to engage us in discussions, state your opinions, ignore what we are saying and then request to move on when you don’t like what we say. If you want to have a discussion about something then have a discussion about it. It would be nice to discuss what the Bible says about this issue at some point rather than just what your opinions about the issue are.

      Unfortunately you don’t get to just state your opinion, ignore what I’m saying and then request to move on. You’ve come here to voice your disagreement with things on this site so the burden of proof is yours. Still waiting.

  297. Enjoying the conversation Steve, especially since I ain’t in it. I came across some discussion about yet another IFB pastor that ran off with the money. Chuck Baldwin of Crossroads Baptist Church in Florida. I will post the whole “Lord Acton’s Axiom” with the “power corrupts quote” and then 5 points a blogger made in ref to the Baldwin situation, which applies to much of the problems that are in the IFB, that I happen to agree with, which I will put at the end. And then I will continue to listen, not looking for you guys to discuss any of this, it appears you are trying to get Richard focused on one thing at a time (good luck)

    Lord Acton’s Axiom

    I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of powers, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibliity has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absloutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainity of corrutpion by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holders of it.

    1) Corruption is directly proportional to the level of power that is available.

    2) The IFB seeems to attract men who present themselves as hand-picked by God.

    3) The single “Man of God” rule is dangerous, manipulativve and one of the greatest sins ever foisted on christendom, and not a biblical concept.

    4) The worship of “independence” leads to bondage

    5) Any simple IFB pastor who is only accountable to God….soon will become the only “god” he is accountable to.

  298. @Steve
    Steve,
    The original quote “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” which started this discussion, was not an original thought from you, me, or Greg. It is credited to a misquote of Lord Acton who used one word in his sentence that changes everything from “power” being the cause to “power” being the conduit. That word is “tends.”
    Words mean things and are important. Thoughts are conveyed by words.
    You call what I believe “Total depravity.” As I inferred earlier, it could be considered as such if “total depravity” is interpreted correctly. I believe I continuously pointed back to the incorrectness of the statement about “power corrupts …” by showing that “power” is not the source according to the Scriptures. I also stated, for that premise of “power corrupts” that Christ would be corrupted being He has “all power.” My whole point is based upon Scriptures well within context. Our flesh is by nature is corrupt therefore power is not the source of corrupt leaders.
    “The “power corrupts…” quote is an extra scriptural issue since it’s not in the scripture. You’re trying to fit it in the scripture, but I don’t know why.” I never tried to fit this quote into the Scriptures. It is contrary to the Scriptures, as the Scriptures pointed out. It, out of context and misquoted, as it was, is not just extra scriptural but anti-scriptural. I have said all along, I am taking this quote as “what it says” and not what it is “supposed” to mean. I said the statement was wrong, not the intent or the premise behind it.
    I say it again, it is a bad statement. I believe we have all made some at times, but sometimes I have noticed it is easier for some people to argue than to agree. You may remember an earlier post when, I kept saying that I agreed with you about something, to which you continued to say You would not let me off the hook that easily. I said that there was no argument, and explained that I agreed with you. I like agreement. I believe we agree on most essential issues, but when we make declarations that are based upon out of context misquotes, we need to not explain away but correct our statements, as you so eloquently did about the verb, noun, adjective thing in your last post.
    In case you did not know, any Bishop/pastor/elder/overseer who takes absolute authority in an IFB church and becomes dictatorial has disqualified himself from the office, and should be confronted by gracious brothers who desire restoration. Refusal to repent and be restored should bring about either removal from office, or if the church chooses to keep him, a movement of membership for his opposition. It is never to be a battle, though because men are prideful it often is. (1Peter_5:3) “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” I am against absolute authority unchecked.

    Oh, I wish you would care about my feelings. I do care about yours even though they are not the issue. I really did not realize that as just fodder. I thought you were interested.

    1. @Richard

      The original quote “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” which started this discussion, was not an original thought from you, me, or Greg. It is credited to a misquote of Lord Acton who used one word in his sentence that changes everything from “power” being the cause to “power” being the conduit. That word is “tends.”

      Yes, I know. I already said that. That’s why I used the conduit analogy. This is what I’ve been trying to tell you. I said almost the exact same thing. You can read it by clicking here. Haven’t you been reading my comments?

      You call what I believe “Total depravity.”

      No I didn’t. I asked you if total depravity is the underlying issue – twice. You never answered that question.

      I believe I continuously pointed back to the incorrectness of the statement about “power corrupts …” by showing that “power” is not the source according to the Scriptures.

      No one is saying that power is the source of corruption. You’re stuck on that, but I don’t know why. That’s been my point throughout this entire discussion. I said that multiple times. If you feel like you have to keep repeating yourself then you either don’t understand what I’m saying or you aren’t paying attention.

      I have said all along, I am taking this quote as “what it says” and not what it is “supposed” to mean.

      And I’ve been saying all along that “what it says” and what it’s “supposed” to mean are the same thing. You’re the only one trying to change its meaning and make it say something it doesn’t.

      I said the statement was wrong, not the intent or the premise behind it.

      How can you evaluate a statement without understanding the intent or the premise behind it? That’s your error. You’re taking a statement at face value despite our desperate and obviously unsuccessful attempts to help you understand it.

      I say it again, it is a bad statement.

      You’re opinion, but only because you don’t see how we’re trying to apply it for some reason.

      … but sometimes I have noticed it is easier for some people to argue than to agree.

      Are you looking in the mirror?

      You may remember an earlier post when, I kept saying that I agreed with you about something, to which you continued to say You would not let me off the hook that easily. I said that there was no argument, and explained that I agreed with you.

      You do have a hard time following the conversation don’t you. I said I wasn’t going to let you off that easy about twisting around what Greg was saying. Here’s the comment in case you need to refresh your memory. Comment #74. I never said I wouldn’t let you off the hook about things we agree on. More twisting and deception. At least you’re being consistent.

      I like agreement.

      Could have fooled me.

      … but when we make declarations that are based upon out of context misquotes…

      Again, no one is doing that.

      Still waiting on those elusive “scriptural truths” regarding this issue.

      Finally, there were FOUR different times in this comment alone that I had to correct your recall of our conversation. I’m not going to continue to invest time and energy into this discussion if you aren’t going to follow along. As much as I enjoy the satisfaction of pointing to your errors it gets quite annoying after a while – especially when you refuse to acknowledge them. If you can’t even follow our discussion how do you expect me to trust your interpretation of scripture? Please be more careful in the future so our discussions can go more smoothly.

  299. @greg
    Greg,
    I liked your thoughts and wanted to comment on them. Please do not take offense.
    1) Corruption is directly proportional to the level of power that is available.
    This statement would possibly be true if men did not see their nature, and did not put up safe-guards against corruption. I did not say safe-guards against power.
    2) The IFB seems to attract men who present themselves as hand-picked by God.
    I would that all men who would stand before God’s people were hand-picked by God to do such. If God did not pick them for the position, whether it be mechanic or minister, it could be considered be out of God’s will. Psalm 37:23 declares that God should direct our steps.
    3) The single “Man of God” rule is dangerous, manipulative and one of the greatest sins ever foisted on Christendom, and not a biblical concept.
    I am not familiar with this rule, but agree that it sounds dangerous. I am not so sure it is unscriptural. Moses, Joshua, etc. are possible examples of one head man with extreme authority.
    4) The worship of “independence” leads to bondage
    Worshipping any thing or one other than God is Idolatry. Idolatry is sin. Sin leads to bondage.
    5) Any simple IFB pastor who is only accountable to God….soon will become the only “god” he is accountable to.
    That is why simpletons should never be placed in the pastorate. If the pastor is not a simpleton, but a qualified bishop, he less likely to fall into that trap. This applies to any group, not just IFB. 1Timothy 3:2-7 deals with that issue. “Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.”

    As to this Mr. Baldwin, I do not know him or the church he pastored, but am grieved that anyone falls in sin. It breaks my heart when men, who supposedly represent Christianity of any group or denomination, fall being it reflects upon the whole in the eyes of this wicked perverse world.

  300. @greg
    Greg,
    Chuck Baldwin was a politician, endorsed by well known Republicans. He was a presidential candidate for a party that “worships” liberty/ independence/autonomy in a country that so believes in liberty and self rule that we set aside a day to “worship” such, and “worship” a document that declares such. (I use the word “worship” only to emphasize that just because you strongly believe in something does not mean you worship it.) Please forgive me if this sounds sarcastic. I just do not know anyone who “worships” independence in the sense of bowing down prostrate before it.
    He had a following of over 186,000 voters even though he was not on the ballot in most influencial states. Many of his supporters were Ron Paul people, not IFB.
    Sounds to me like a real “Jim Jones” or Jim & Tammy Faye Bakker (neither of which were IFB).
    Is he a cult figure? possiblity. Is the Constitutional Party which he represented a cult? I do not think so. Was his church a cult? Most likely not.
    CB, if what I read is even 3/4 the way true, is a wolf in sheeps clothing. IFB doctrine did not make him such. He is a deceiver. Whether he had trusted Christ or not, who can be sure? He either followed his flesh and was hardened through the deceitfulness of sin, or his father the devil who was a liar from the beginning. One day the truth of who and what he is may be revealed if he quits trying to justify himself, like all of us pride-filled haters of this defiled nature tend to do when we are caught in sin. (Maybe you have never considered or tried to make yourself look not guilty when you know you are guilty, but most people have, even Christians. If you do not believe me, just ask your friends and family, they have. How do I know? Pride produces a desire for self preservation.)

  301. Steve & Greg,
    Would you say this a correct statement? “Corrupt (adjective) people corrupt (verb) power. Consecrated people consecrated power. Power does nothing of itself. Power is neutral until used.”
    This would be both accurate in Political Science and in line with the Bible.
    Adam was not corrupted by having dominion (power/authority) over God’s creation.

  302. I misquoted myself, no wonder I misquote you.
    “Consecrated people consecrate power.”

    1. This is what’s known as a “loaded question fallacy” and is again nothing more than a trap question. If I say “yes” then I’ve obviously set myself up to be wrong about the issue since I’d be agreeing that power can’t do anything in and of itself.

      On the other hand, if I say no, then it would imply that I’m simply saying no to be argumentative since saying no would go contrary to the dictionary definitions of corrupt and consecrate which would also discredit my position.

      I know what you’re getting at and I think it’s pretty sneaky and deceptive. You’ve already made up your mind and aren’t asking so you can continue to explore the issue. You’re asking so that you can trap us into agreeing with you.

      Sorry, but I’m not falling for it. You’re oversimplifying this question (and this entire issue) so that it fits your beliefs. That only hurts you because it keeps you closed minded. This isn’t as cut and dry as you’re making it out to be.

      In the interest of continued exploration (for my benefit, at least, since you’ve obviously made up your mind), I will try and flesh out the issue so that at least I can come to a better understanding of the problems presented in this discussion. You can try to understand it better too if you want, but I’m not holding my breath.

      To be honest, my knee jerk reaction was to say yes (that it is a correct statement). Given the definitions of corrupt and consecrate I think power can be both corrupted and consecrated. Just like a custom or tradition can be corrupted or consecrated, so can power.

      This is similar to the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument. The argument is that the gun isn’t evil and never is – the only thing that makes a gun evil is the way it’s used. In this sense, if a gun is used for good it is consecrated and if it’s used for bad it’s corrupted. If I understand correctly, you’re saying the same thing about power “power doesn’t corrupt people, people corrupt people and people corrupt power” right?

      HOWEVER…

      What most people don’t realize is that this type of argument falls flat because a person is 100% more likely to kill someone with a gun if he/she has a gun. After all, if there were no guns there would be no gun deaths. As a result, people are consequently much more likely to be corrupted by guns since guns hold significantly more power than let’s say a knife or a lead pipe and it’s much easier to kill someone with a gun. Therefore a person is significantly more likely to be more corrupted by a gun then a knife.

      The same is true of power. I’m more likely to abuse power if I have power to abuse. (No power, no chance of abuse of power, no corruption. Lots of power, lots of potential for abuse of power, lots of potential for corruption). In this sense then, people are corrupted by power since the more the power, the more potential for abusing that power and an exponential increase in potential corruption.

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

      Your Adam analogy doesn’t fit either. Adam and Eve eventually WERE corrupted at the prospect of an increase in power. Satan told them that they would be just like God (Genesis 3). Just the desire for that much power corrupted them. Imagine if they were to actually have gotten that much power! Remember too that Adam and Eve were sinless until presented with the prospect of unlimited power. So yes, they were indeed corrupted (in every sense of the word) by power.

      OK, so I admit this was rather confusing to think through, especially because of your loaded question, but I think I got it sorted out in my head. There’s a lot to think about and I kind of regret your implications that this is as simple of an issue as you are presenting it. I still get no indication from you that you acknowledge your mistakes (the one’s I pointed out in my last comment) or that you’re really taking the time to understand our position on this issue. It sure would be nice to know that you are really reading and digesting my comments. They take a lot of time and effort and having equal participation in the discussion would make it more worth while. But for now I have to just continue to realize that you’re only hurting yourself.

      This would be both accurate in Political Science and in line with the Bible.

      So my question to you is… How do you know this is “in line with the Bible”? How do you find support from the bible for your position?

  303. Hey Steve, I bumped into our old friend “Dr Chad Bush” on another website, anyhoo, it occurred to me, he and Richard argue in the same way. I can’t explain their way of arguing like you, but it is very similar (don’t you think?). Also the breakdown you did above was so great, I could follow it all.

    Anyway still enjoying the dialogue, and still glad I’m not in it.

  304. @Steve
    Steve,
    “The same is true of power. I’m more likely to abuse power if I have power to abuse. (No power, no chance of abuse of power, no corruption. Lots of power, lots of potential for abuse of power, lots of potential for corruption). In this sense
    then, people are corrupted by power since the more the power, the more potential for abusing that power and an exponential increase in potential corruption.”

    I put your quote right here so that I do not misrepresent what is said. “I’m more likely to abuse” blames the person. “Power” did nothing. I cannot abuse my wife if I have not one, I cannot abuse a gun if I do not have one. I have a wife and I do not abuse her. I have a gun and have not abused it. So according to your statements, I get the impression that man is not responsible for his behavior, since “power” made him abuse it just because it was there, and the gun is the killer just because it’s there.
    I believe a better way of saying what you said would probably be, “People are corrupted by ‘potential’,” since potential to abuse is the focus both with guns and power. Logically a man should not own a car because he has “potential” to drive erratically, not have a wife for “potential” to beat her, etc.
    With this line of reasoning, there is no personal responsibility for our actions. It is the innocent object that is the blame.

    “So my question to you is… How do you know this is “in line with the Bible”? How do you find support from the bible for your position?”
    I believe my previous posts already have shown the verses showing the corrupt nature of the flesh by declaration and implication. I do not believe you would argue with this nature being ever present, even in the redeemed.

    “Your Adam analogy doesn’t fit either. Adam and Eve eventually WERE corrupted at the prospect of an increase in power. Satan told them that they would be just like God (Genesis 3). Just the desire for that much power corrupted them. Imagine if they were to actually have gotten that much power!”
    1Timothy 2:14 “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”
    According to this verse Adam willfully sinned knowing the consequences. Death is not potential power. He had “dominion” (power/authority). He gave it up for death. He knew exactly what he was doing. Why he did it I only can give opinion, God does not say. Maybe he loved his wife more than he loved God. (Just a speculation, not a declaration). How much more power do you think Adam wanted? He had dominion over the whole earth.

    Lastly, I was not attempting to “trap” you by your answer. I was attempting to come to a consensus statement to which you and I could agree. I like agreement. I also like being correct, as is true with anyone. If I am correct in an agreeable statement, then you are correct in agreeing with the statement. If I am incorrect, or you believe me to be, it would not be consensus but compromise for you to agree with me. I do not want compromise, but correctness.

  305. I forgot to explain the consecrtated side of my political science/in line with the Bible statement.
    Galatians 5:16 “This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the
    flesh.”
    Galatians 6:8 “For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.”

    1. So according to your statements, I get the impression that man is not responsible for his behavior, since “power” made him abuse it just because it was there, and the gun is the killer just because it’s there.

      I never said that “power made him abuse”. I don’t know why you still have that impression after all I’ve said about the issue. I’m seriously baffled and confused about this statement from you. I’ve worked really hard to be clear about this.

      I was going to go back and quote myself to offer proof about what I’ve said, but I’ll leave that up to you if you want.

      Let me try to re-state this very clearly because I still don’t know why you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying.

      1. I view power as a conduit and catalyst of corruption.

      a. I do not think that this removes mankind’s responsibility for behaviors

      b. I agree that we blame the person not power, however;

      i. I do believe that we can’t escape the fact that its power (and not something else) that is involved and part of the equation.

      c. I do not think that my view point about power is in conflict with the scriptural teaching that man is already corrupted by a sinful nature.

      2. I do think that power is a strong temptation to sin and tends to corrupt a person in areas that wouldn’t otherwise be a problem (corruption in the sense of making worse). This is just common sense. If I don’t have power then I can’t sin via power.

      You know, it’s ironic. I just looked up the word “corruption” in the dictionary. I’ve been focusing on the word “corrupt” and “corrupted” but I never looked up the word “corruption” in the dictionary. When I did do you know what the definition said? “Dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power…” “Power” is in one of the very definitions of the word corruption.

      It also stated: “The process by which something…is changed.” The operative word here is “changed”. Corruption means to change for the worse. If someone acts a certain way without power and then acts in a worse way with power then they were corrupted (made worse) by that power. It was power and not something else that was the catalyst for behaving worse than how they would normally behave.

      I believe a better way of saying what you said would probably be, “People are corrupted by ‘potential’,” since potential to abuse is the focus both with guns and power. Logically a man should not own a car because he has “potential” to drive erratically, not have a wife for “potential” to beat her, etc.
      With this line of reasoning, there is no personal responsibility for our actions. It is the innocent object that is the blame.

      You’re focusing “potential” in the wrong direction. Power can cause potential as well. Humans already have the potential, but if you add power into the equation then the potential increases. We have the “potential” to do anything. But I only have “potential” to abuse power if I have power to abuse.

      Also, I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t do things because of the “potential” for corruption. You’re putting words in my mouth.

      Neither does this take away personal responsibility. You’re blurring two different topics here: 1. the potential corruption by people in power and 2. personal responsibility. I can comfortably believe that power is a conduit of corruption and at the same time believe that we are responsible for our behaviors. The two aren’t necessarily in conflict.

      I believe my previous posts already have shown the verses showing the corrupt nature of the flesh by declaration and implication. I do not believe you would argue with this nature being ever present, even in the redeemed.

      You only gave scripture references. Anyone can do that. I asked you to explain how you get your perspective from the Bible. I didn’t ask you to just quote scripture. You’re a pastor yet all you can do is quote scripture? I have atheist friends who can do that.

      1Timothy 2:14 “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” According to this verse Adam willfully sinned knowing the consequences. Death is not potential power. He had “dominion” (power/authority). He gave it up for death. He knew exactly what he was doing.

      1 Timothy 2:14 reads: “And it was the woman, not Adam, who was deceived by Satan Seems you conveniently left out the by Satan part (although I’m not surprised since the KJV omits those two words). We are never told that he wasn’t deceived by Eve passing along the information Satan told her. I’m pretty sure we can logically deduce that he didn’t “give up” everything for death. We are talking about superior beings, pure and sinless. Why would he all of a sudden become so dumb that he would be willing to give up everything for death unless he had been deceived? This is an example of God giving us the liberty to use logic and reason. (and a good example of why we shouldn’t use the KJV anymore, but that can be for another discussion).

      I forgot to explain the consecrtated side of my political science/in line with the Bible statement.

      Again, you didn’t “explain” anything you just quoted a few random verses that seem to fit your point of view. I’d like to know if you really understand those verses in context. Can you explain how you justify your interpretation of those scripture references please? Surely as a pastor you can do better exegesis than simply quoting a few verses?!

      Lastly, I was not attempting to “trap” you by your answer. I was attempting to come to a consensus statement to which you and I could agree. I like agreement. I also like being correct, as is true with anyone. If I am correct in an agreeable statement, then you are correct in agreeing with the statement. If I am incorrect, or you believe me to be, it would not be consensus but compromise for you to agree with me. I do not want compromise, but correctness.

      Sorry, I don’t believe you. I was involved in the IFB too long to fall for that. If you were trying to come to a consensus you would have written a statement that contained some of what we both believe about the issue. You only wrote what you believe and then asked if we would agree with you. You were attempting to trap me into agreeing with you.

      You like agreement, but only if we agree with you not if you have to agree with us.

      It is possible that we need to agree to disagree and move on. Personally I think we’ve reached an impasse.

  306. @Steve
    Steve,
    “1. I view power as a conduit and catalyst of corruption.
    a. I do not think that this removes mankind’s responsibility for behaviors
    b. I agree that we blame the person not power, however;
    i. I do believe that we can’t escape the fact that its power (and not something else) that is involved and part of the equation.
    c. I do not think that my view point about power is in conflict with the
    scriptural teaching that man is already corrupted by a sinful nature.
    2. I do think that power is a strong temptation to sin and tends to corrupt a person in areas that wouldn’t otherwise be a problem (corruption in the sense of making worse). This is just common sense. If I don’t have power then I can’t sin via power.”

    This declaration, or ones like this are what I was agreeing with when I made my political science/in line with the Bible statement. One concise statement that is totally in agreement with what you said. You either agree or disagree with the statement. It should not matter my motive (which you imply is evil) or my affiliations. Either the statement is in line with what you believe or it is not. All I see is different wording.

    “Also, I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t do things because of the “potential” for
    corruption. You’re putting words in my mouth. I’m just saying that unless someone
    has power, power can’t be a catalyst of corruption.”

    I was not putting words in your mouth. I was following your argument to its logical end. If you would have, you would have realized guns never kill unless there is an outside force, the killer. To make the gun or power responsible is not fair to either, and leads to a slippery slope of non-responsibility for actions. I only tried to point out the absurdity of putting any blame on the gun as you did. Read this statement and reason this out. Men who are married are 100% more likely to beat their wife than the unmarried, so instead of convicting wife abusers, get rid of marriage. Absurd? “What most people don’t realize is that this type of argument falls flat because a person is 100% more likely to kill someone with a gun if he/she has a gun. After all, if there were no guns there would be no gun deaths.” Same logic. This I believe is the most totally illogical, & not at all thought out statement you have made.

    As to Adam being deceived by the woman, to make that as a truth, one would have to be adding to the Scriptures. It never says that or anything that implies such. To argue such as fact would be extra-Scriptural revelation, not reasoning. Adam knew exactly what God had said, and knew he would lose it all if he ate of the fruit. This conversation between him and the woman about this matter is a new one on me. If you believe this happened, you are no better than the IFB pastor who lord’s over God’s heritage. You add to and they take away from the Scriptures.

    “Why would he all of a sudden become so dumb that he would be willing to
    give up everything for death unless he had been deceived?”
    I do not believe Adam became dumb, nor deceived. He became disobedient to the word of God. He willfully sinned after coming to the knowledge of the truth.

    Oh, while I am on the subject. “Surely as a pastor you can do better exegesis than simply quoting a few verses?!” Why would I explain what is obviously clear? The Scriptures are the best commentary on the Scriptures. If they declare a truth so clear that it need not be elaborated, I will just let them speak. God is smarter than Baptist preachers. I believe Romans 6&7 are very clear about our flesh and the battle we have. If you disagree with my view on the nature of the flesh or our need to be consecrated (walk in the Spirit), your debate is with God’s word. I truly believe you and I agree on these things if you believe what you call a Bible. (I believe God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick).

    “Sorry, I don’t believe you. I was involved in the IFB too long to fall for that. If you were trying to come to a consensus you would have written a statement that contained some of what we both believe about the issue. You only wrote what you believe and then asked if we would agree with you. You were attempting to trap me into agreeing with you.”

    Is that like saying, “Liar, liar, pants on fire, telephone nose as long as a wire.”

    Titus 1:15 “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”

  307. @Steve
    Corruption
    1. the act of corrupting or state of being corrupt.

    2. moral perversion; depravity.

    3. perversion of integrity.

    4. corrupt or dishonest proceedings.

    5. bribery.

    6. debasement or alteration, as of language or a text.

    7. a debased form of a word.

    8. putrefactive decay; rottenness.

    9. any corrupting influence or agency

  308. Of all the definitions of corruption in my last post, I am trying to find one that is synonomous with power. Only #9 would come close, and then only if the power had been corrupted previously. Corrupted power would be a corrupting influence or agency, but then the question would be, “How did the power get corrupted in the first place?” Something that is not corrupt cannot corrupt to any extent, though as we have agreed it can be a catalyst.
    Power
    1. ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something.

    2. political or national strength: the balance of power in Europe.

    3. great or marked ability to do or act; strength; might; force.

    4. the possession of control or command over others; authority; ascendancy: power over men’s minds.

    5. political ascendancy or control in the government of a country, state, etc.: They attained power by overthrowing the legal government.

    Notice “power” in itself is never defined as something corrupt or evil, though we can see how it can be applied to evil and corrupt actions.

    You are the one who wants to go to definitions.

    “You know, it’s ironic. I just looked up the word “corruption” in the dictionary. I’ve been focusing on the word “corrupt” and “corrupted” but I never looked up the word “corruption” in the dictionary. When I did do you know what the definition said? “Dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power…” “Power” is in one of the very definitions of the word corruption.”

    What is “Dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those” not in power? According to definitions I found #s 1-4 it would be corruption.

    Please let me know what dictionary you used. I chose to just use an on-line dictionary at random since some people have issues with Webster.

    Unless you are ready to use your power, I am ready again to move on.

  309. Listen to http://www.candlestickbaptist.org sermon for 4/22/2012, and you will understand real IFB love. The message is not expositional, but is a special service exalting the Divine Servant, and honoring some of the servants whom He loves.

    1. This declaration, or ones like this are what I was agreeing with when I made my political science/in line with the Bible statement. One concise statement that is totally in agreement with what you said. You either agree or disagree with the statement.

      The difference is that I’m simply stating how I view the issue while you’re trying to get me to agree with you. I don’t really care if you agree with me or not. I’m just trying to help you understand our perspective since you asked. If you weren’t so focused on getting me to agree with you then maybe you’d be able to see what we’re trying to say.

      It should not matter my motive (which you imply is evil) or my affiliations. Either the statement is in line with what you believe or it is not. All I see is different wording.

      I never implied that your motive is evil. I’m not sure why you see it that way. I just said that you’re trying to trap me. A trap is a natural consequence of the loaded question fallacy. It’s not evil, just a mistake. I think I’ve already said that a few times. If you present a logical fallacy whether formal or informal you better be prepared for me to comment on it. I would expect the same of you.

      You said in one comment that the wording is what’s important then in this comment you hand wave what I say as just “different wording”. So which is it? Is the wording important or not?

      I was not putting words in your mouth. I was following your argument to its logical end. If you would have, you would have realized guns never kill unless there is an outside force, the killer. To make the gun or power responsible is not fair to either, and leads to a slippery slope of non-responsibility for actions. I only tried to point out the absurdity of putting any blame on the gun as you did.

      What part of “I agree we blame the person not the power (or the gun).” (a direct quote from a previous comment) didn’t you understand? When you make the claim that I said the exact opposite of what I actually said, then yes, you’re trying to put words in my mouth. I never placed blame on the gun or the power so your “logical end” doesn’t fit because you don’t (or won’t, I’m not sure which) understand my premise.

      Read this statement and reason this out. Men who are married are 100% more likely to beat their wife than the unmarried, so instead of convicting wife abusers, get rid of marriage. Absurd?

      “What most people don’t realize is that this type of argument falls flat because a person is 100% more likely to kill someone with a gun if he/she has a gun. After all, if there were no guns there would be no gun deaths.”

      Same logic. This I believe is the most totally illogical, & not at all thought out statement you have made.

      OK great, let’s “reason it out”. Here’s a lesson in formal logic using proper syllogism:

      Major Premise: Men who are married are 100% more likely to beat their wife than an unmarried man
      Minor Premise: John has a wife
      Conclusion: John is 100 % more likely to beat his wife than a man without a wife

      You’re accusing me of forming a conclusion (blame the wife, get rid of marriage, blame power, blame the gun) that doesn’t fit the premise. I never placed blame on the victim or the conduit/catalyst of the corruption. You’re saying I am but I’m not. The only conclusion that I’ve come up with is that power is a catalyst/conduit of corruption. You keep telling me that my conclusion is different than what I’ve stated.

      What I’m saying:

      Major Premise: I will only abuse power if I have power to abuse
      Minor Premise: I have power
      Conclusion: I have the opportunity to abuse power

      Major Premise: If I do not have power, I will not abuse power
      Minor Premise: I do not have power
      Conclusion: I do not abuse power

      Major Premise: If John has a wife John is 100% more likely to beat her than a man without a wife.
      Minor Premise: John has a wife
      Conclusion: John is 100% more likely to beat his wife than a man without a wife.

      Major Premise: If John doesn’t have a wife, he has no opportunity to beat her
      Minor Premise: John doesn’t have a wife
      Conclusion: John has no opportunity to beat wife since he doesn’t have one

      Major Premise: If I have a gun, I’m 100% more likely to commit a gun crime than a person without a gun
      Minor Premise: I have a gun
      Conclusion: I’m 100% more likely to commit a gun crime compared to a person without a gun.

      Major Premise: If I don’t have a gun, I have zero chance of harming someone with a gun
      Minor Premise: I don’t have a gun
      Conclusion: I have no chance of committing a gun crime

      what you’re accusing me of saying :

      Major Premise: I will only abuse power if I have power to abuse
      Minor Premise: I have power
      Conclusion: Power is responsible for the abuse/corruption (this doesn’t logically follow the premise)

      Major Premise: If I do not have power I will not abuse power
      Minor Premise: I do not have power
      Conclusion: Man is corrupt already without power (this doesn’t logically follow the premise)

      Major Premise: If John has a wife he is 100% more likely to beat his wife than if he didn’t have a wife
      Minor Premise: John has a wife
      Conclusion: The wife is to blame for John beating her (this doesn’t logically follow the premise)

      Major Premise: If I have a gun, I’m 100% more likely to commit a gun crime than a person without a gun
      Minor Premise: I have a gun
      Conclusion: The gun is to blame for gun crime (this doesn’t logically follow the premise)

      And so on… If I don’t have power then power can’t be the conduit/catalyst of my corruption can it?

      “What most people don’t realize is that this type of argument falls flat because a person is 100% more likely to kill someone with a gun if he/she has a gun. After all, if there were no guns there would be no gun deaths.”

      Same logic. This I believe is the most totally illogical, & not at all thought out statement you have made.

      So basically you’re saying “you’re wrong”? A little more information on why you think that’s illogical and not thought out would be appreciated.

      As to Adam being deceived by the woman, to make that as a truth, one would have to be adding to the Scriptures. It never says that or anything that implies such. To argue such as fact would be extra-Scriptural revelation, not reasoning.

      Nothing is added to the scripture. The KJV omits things. You can read more about my take on the KJV here http://www.baptistdeception.com/kjv-only-deception/ Of course you wouldn’t logically conclude the same thing I did about Adam since your KJV bible leaves out a critical element in that verse.

      I’m not pretending it’s a factual statement found in the bible. I’m just using reason and logic to come to a conclusion about something that isn’t overtly stated in scripture. Unlike you who fill in the gaps with what you believe and then claim it as scriptural fact.

      Adam knew exactly what God had said, and knew he would lose it all if he ate of the fruit. This conversation between him and the woman about this matter is a new one on me. If you believe this happened, you are no better than the IFB pastor who lord’s over God’s heritage. You add to and they take away from the Scriptures.

      You’re stating fact where there is no fact to state. The bible is silent on the details – you even admitted that yourself, yet you are stating it as fact. Too KNOW that Eve didn’t tell Adam what Satan told her would be “extra Biblical revelation” also since that’s an impossible claim to knowledge since it’s not found in the Bible (or at least I’ve never seen it before).

      The difference is that you are stating as fact something that is impossible to know where as I’m stating opinion based on the evidence.

      I do not believe Adam became dumb, nor deceived. He became disobedient to the word of God. He willfully sinned after coming to the knowledge of the truth.

      So you’re saying that the tree of knowledge of good and evil is to blame for Adam’s willful disobedience?

      Why would I explain what is obviously clear? The Scriptures are the best commentary on the Scriptures.

      Because 1. It’s not “obviously clear” to everyone (especially to those who don’t understand KJV English which you quoted) – just because it’s “obviously clear” to you doesn’t mean it’s “obviously clear” to others, and 2. because I asked you so we can discuss it in context – or am I not important enough for you to explain you’re interpretation of scripture to me?

      “The scriptures are the best commentary on the Scriptures” ONLY if you have proper exegesis. The scripture aren’t the best commentary on the scriptures if you pull verses out of context and twist them to fit your beliefs. What you’re doing is the latter. Like I said, I have atheist friends who can do that. I want to know if you really understand the context or if you are just finding scripture that fits your beliefs. Still waiting…

      If they declare a truth so clear that it need not be elaborated, I will just let them speak. God is smarter than Baptist preachers. I believe Romans 6&7 are very clear about our flesh and the battle we have. If you disagree with my view on the nature of the flesh or our need to be consecrated (walk in the Spirit), your debate is with God’s word. I truly believe you and I agree on these things if you believe what you call a Bible. (I believe God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick).

      So when you preach on Sunday morning do you just get up and read a few verses and then dismiss? If the scriptures “declare a truth so clear that it need not be elaborated” then why do we need preaching/teaching?

      My argument is not about the scripture you quoted. It’s with your understanding of the scripture you quoted. Anyone can find scripture that supports their view. I want to know WHY you believe those scriptures fit your perspective on the argument. What do those scriptures have to do with “power tends to corrupt…” quote (which is what we’re discussing)? How do they fit with what we’re discussing? What does that mean “walk in the spirit”? How is that done? How does that support your view that someone can’t be corrupted by power? and so on… just like you’d do when you preach/teach.

      “Sorry, I don’t believe you. I was involved in the IFB too long to fall for that. If you were trying to come to a consensus you would have written a statement that contained some of what we both believe about the issue. You only wrote what you believe and then asked if we would agree with you. You were attempting to trap me into agreeing with you.”

      Is that like saying, “Liar, liar, pants on fire, telephone nose as long as a wire.”

      I’m not even going to dignify that with a reply. And you call me illogical?!

      Titus 1:15 “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”

      What’s that supposed to mean?

      I can do the same thing: Can I have all your money please? Matthew 5:42 – “Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.”

      You are the one who wants to go to definitions.

      Not really, I just saw it as ironic nothing more. That’s why I said “You know, it’s ironic…”.

      As I recall you pulled out the dictionary as well when we were discussing pulpit. See your comment here http://www.baptistdeception.com/cult/comment-page-3/#comment-6856 so you have no stone to throw when it comes to “pulling out the dictionary”.

      Please let me know what dictionary you used. I chose to just use an on-line dictionary at random since some people have issues with Webster.

      It was one of the dictionaries on my computer. I think it’s Random House or Merriam-Webster. I don’t remember which one I was looking at to be honest.

      Unless you are ready to use your power, I am ready again to move on.

      I’m ready when you are.

  310. @Steve
    Steve,
    You have my questions. The ball is in your court.

    “And so on… If I don’t have power then power can’t be the conduit/catalyst of my corruption can it?”
    That statement again settles everything. There is corruption whether or not you have power according to you. Why is there corruption? Because you and I were born with it.

    As to Adam and Eve having some conversation that is not disclosed in the Bible. I am alright with that. I only limited myself to the Bible. I did not take away from it, or add to it (at least we should be able to agree for this case of Adam’s sin). Disobedience is not dumb or based upon deceit. It is based upon choice. Adam was not dumb. He knew exactly what God had said. He was not deceived. He knew God had never lied to him, and there is no basis for the idea that anyone had deceived him. Speculation on this, when God declares differently is dangerous. I know you say the KJV left out words here, but I am asking you for the translation that puts implication of deception. It is a logical deduction only if there is any evidence. There has not been any given. My opinion that Adam chose the woman and death with her over God and life with Him is at least backed by what is said in my Bible.

    As to your ability to understand the verses I gave to back the political science/in line with the Bible statement that I made. I am asking which one did you not understand.

    As to you wanting my money, where do you want it sent, when do you need it, and how much is your need? If I have this world’s goods and am able to meet the need of a brother in Christ, I am more than willing to take care of it. I believe this Bible, whether you say it is right or wrong.

    If you do not believe I am willing to meet your need, you should listen to http://www.candlestickbaptist.org sermon for 4/22/2012. I cried throughout the whole message.

    Titus 1:15 “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”
    “What’s that supposed to mean?”

    The apostle was exhorting young Titus, on the care he should use in looking for God’s men to lead God’s people. He gives him a challenge to know men. He shows the specific qualifications for the office of Bishop, and then gives the contrast.
    At this point , Titus is commanded to stand against these who are opposing the truth, and to not yield to their lies and deceptions. Then, as if Titus needed to be reminded, Paul gives this simple, yet profound way to recognize those who have believed the lies. “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.” There are those who receive with meekness the engrafted words, without debate, and are willing to listen, and there are those who for whatever reason have chosen to reject you no matter what you say. Something has so gotten to them that there is no room for discussion, because they just are against the truth. They would be called reprobate, void of understanding, and this all based upon something that you, Titus, cannot undo. The saddest part is that these ones who are so ate up with defilement are blinded to their own condition and are like Samson who knew not that the Holy Spirit had departed, therefore all the time they rail against obvious truth they say “Me and God, we’re alright.”

    Application: You have had experiences with IFB that have defiled your mind to believe that just because someone is IFB you put up a wall. Whether he is real and has a relationship with Christ is irrelevant to your view. It is as if you are at war with IFB people, even when you are in agreement with them. This is unfair to yourself, unjust to those who are IFB because they believe Bible doctrine and believe in a particular kind of church governing, & undesired by God, who would much rather we endeavored to keep the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace among the church and within our fellowship with other believers. (This statement does not need to be answered or argued. It is a response to your question. If you disagree with my assessment, so be it.)

  311. How should a church find a pastor? I believe I tried to move to this earlier in one of my posts. One more question. If a church votes in a pastor and agrees to give him extreme unchecked authority and he turns out to be a Diotrephes, what should they do, and who is at fault? These are important in the whole premise of church government, and church government is what makes an IFB church IFB. Doctrine only makes it Baptist. Everything else that makes IFB IFB is governing (whether right or wrong).
    How should we do church? Who dictates how we should do church? Does the church have any say about how to do church or to take care of church business? I am IFB, and I believe God gave the individual churches the liberty to do church as they see fit by the Holy Ghost leadership.
    What is “Dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those” not in power?

    1. You have my questions. The ball is in your court.

      I’ve been waiting on you. I only do one topic at a time. When you’re done with this discussion about power and corruption I’ll move on. I’m waiting on you to be done, but it seems like you have to have the final word so let me know when you’ve decided to quit talking about this.

      “And so on… If I don’t have power then power can’t be the conduit/catalyst of my corruption can it?”

      That statement again settles everything. There is corruption whether or not you have power according to you. Why is there corruption? Because you and I were born with it.

      No, that’s not what my statement says nor even implies.

      …”there is no basis for the idea that anyone had deceived him (Adam).

      I gave you a basis for this. You refuse to acknowledge it, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

      Speculation on this, when God declares differently is dangerous. I know you say the KJV left out words here, but I am asking you for the translation that puts implication of deception. It is a logical deduction only if there is any evidence. There has not been any given. My opinion that Adam chose the woman and death with her over God and life with Him is at least backed by what is said in my Bible.

      I gave you the evidence. Why do you ignore it?

      As to your ability to understand the verses I gave to back the political science/in line with the Bible statement that I made. I am asking which one did you not understand.

      I never said I didn’t understand them. Please re-read what I requested.

      As to you wanting my money, where do you want it sent, when do you need it, and how much is your need? If I have this world’s goods and am able to meet the need of a brother in Christ, I am more than willing to take care of it. I believe this Bible, whether you say it is right or wrong.

      Great. I want $250,000 by this time next week. You can send your donation via PayPal via [email protected] Wait, why are you asking what my need is? Matthew 5:42 tells you to ”Give to him that asketh thee…” not ”Give to him that needeth…” Are you trying to add to scriptures Richard? Shame on you. So given your method of interpreting scripture then you should give me the money since God has commanded you to “Give to him that asketh thee…”. Ya know on second thought… lets start with $5,000 in paypal to prove to me that you will practice what you preach. After I see that you’re going to follow through then I will send you my contact information and you can send a money order to me for the remainder.

      If you do not believe I am willing to meet your need, you should listen to http://www.candlestickbaptist.org sermon for 4/22/2012. I cried throughout the whole message.

      First, again, Matthew 5:42 says: ”Give to him that asketh…” not “needeth”. If you are only willing to meet my needs then you aren’t obeying scripture (according to your way of imterpreting the Bible).

      Second, I believe you’re willing. There’s a big difference between being willing and actually doing it though. I’m anxiously awaiting the money. That will really help us.

      Titus 1:15 “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”
      “What’s that supposed to mean?”

      The apostle was exhorting young Titus, on the care he should use in looking for God’s men to lead God’s people. He gives him a challenge to know men. He shows the specific qualifications for the office of Bishop, and then gives the contrast.
      At this point , Titus is commanded to stand against these who are opposing the truth, and to not yield to their lies and deceptions. Then, as if Titus needed to be reminded, Paul gives this simple, yet profound way to recognize those who have believed the lies. “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.” There are those who receive with meekness the engrafted words, without debate, and are willing to listen, and there are those who for whatever reason have chosen to reject you no matter what you say. Something has so gotten to them that there is no room for discussion, because they just are against the truth. They would be called reprobate, void of understanding, and this all based upon something that you, Titus, cannot undo. The saddest part is that these ones who are so ate up with defilement are blinded to their own condition and are like Samson who knew not that the Holy Spirit had departed, therefore all the time they rail against obvious truth they say “Me and God, we’re alright.”

      Application: You have had experiences with IFB that have defiled your mind to believe that just because someone is IFB you put up a wall. Whether he is real and has a relationship with Christ is irrelevant to your view. It is as if you are at war with IFB people, even when you are in agreement with them. This is unfair to yourself, unjust to those who are IFB because they believe Bible doctrine and believe in a particular kind of church governing, & undesired by God, who would much rather we endeavored to keep the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace among the church and within our fellowship with other believers. (This statement does not need to be answered or argued. It is a response to your question. If you disagree with my assessment, so be it.)

      OK, pay attention to this because it’s going to be my last comment and last communication with you (except for communicating about where to send the money). I explain why below.

      So basically you’re saying that since you have the truth you see all things pure and because I believe lies and deceptions then my mind is defiled and impure? Do you honestly not see how arrogant and judgmental that is?

      I also wonder if you realize that you’ve just discredited yourself on both fronts – the corruption argument and your “application” of this verse.

      First, You say that my experiences with IFB have defiled my mind. If you’re argument is that power can’t corrupt, how can say that the IFB has corrupted my mind (defiled is a synonym of corruption and in fact, properly interpreted Titus 1:15 should read corrupted)? These two can’t co-exist. You’re entire argument was that Power can’t corrupt because we are already corrupted, but somehow the IFB has the ability to “defile” my mind. Like I said before, you’re so twisted in your thinking that you can’t even keep straight what YOU say let alone what I say.

      Second, you interpret Titus 1:15 with the “defiled and unbelieving” as the ones who yield to the lies and deceptions of those who oppose the truth. If that’s true, and you believe that the IFB has the truth, then how could my experiences with the IFB have defiled my mind? You’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

      So now I see what you’re real motives are for being here. I knew it would come out eventually. You have no interest in having a discussion or coming to the “truth” do you? You’re on some sort of mission to try and educate and proselytize me. If you think I’m just going to let you judge me and preach at me and then let it go because you said in parentheses if I disagree “so be it” you’re delusional. No, this definitely needs to be answered AND argued. If you have your mind set that I’m this bitter, vindictive and cynical person with some sort of vendetta against the IFB you’re sadly mistaken. You have your mind set that I’ve “put a wall” and refuse to at least acknowledge that you may be wrong about me. As a result I’m afraid that further discussions with you is futile. I’m fine with discussions and debates, but I’ll not tolerate someone preaching their closed-minded dogma at me. The IFB doesn’t have exclusive rights to the truth. Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, your IFB “doctrines” don’t provide the truth? You have blinders on Richard. I hope that one day you will take them off.

      What you describe about me is extremely pretentious. My relationship with God and what I’m doing here on this site is between me and God and you have no right to judge my ministry or me. You have no idea what’s in my mind and it’s pretty arrogant of you to pretend that you do. You have no idea how God has worked in my life and what my relationship with God is about.

      It seems my earlier suspicions have been confirmed. You aren’t interested in the truth at all. Here’s a news flash for you… the IFB doesn’t have the patent on Biblical truth. The IFB doesn’t even believe “Bible doctrine” – the IFB believes IFB doctrine. These are “extra biblical revelations” (as you like to call it) and man made ideals/traditions about a how to do religion that are based on poor biblical exegesis and lead to legalism and traditionalism. You think they are “biblical truths” because you’ve bought into the deception, but the aren’t. Your butcher of what Titus 1:15 is all about is proof positive.

      In reality, there’s no such thing as “Bible doctrine”. Doctrine by its very definition is nothing more than what a particular group of Christians believe about the Bible. If you’re teaching IFB doctrine then I’m afraid that you are no better than someone who teaches Presbyterian doctrine, or Methodist doctrine, or even Catholic doctrine.

      As a result, you aren’t interested in Biblical truth at all. You’re interested in what you perceive as Biblical truth based on your IFB doctrines.

      A big difference between you and I is that I have no Christian group to influence how I interpret or view Biblical truth. My view of God and the Bible isn’t tainted by religion. That bugs you because you don’t understand how someone can “do Christianity” outside the confines of a denomination or group. It bugs you because you claim that the IFB is “Independent” when in actuality it’s so dependent that people like you can’t think for themselves.

      This is so foreign to you that the only recourse you have is to attack me and try to convert me to your way of thinking. I’ve been there done that and have the tee shirt to prove it. I’ve been freed of the restrictions and false teachings of the IFB and I’m enjoying a pure, unhindered relationship with God. Maybe you’re jealous about that, I’m not sure. But what I do know beyond any doubt that you don’t have the truth.

      Ultimately with this passage I’m afraid that your IFB beliefs have tainted your view of this particular verse. Besides you using this verse to judge me and accuse me of having a “defiled mind”, I have several problems with your application:

      First, this verse isn’t about Paul giving a “simple, yet profound way to recognize those who have believed the lies” of those opposing the truth. What you’re trying to do is use this verse to justify your judgmentalism. Nowhere in the passage does it even hint to the idea that we are supposed to judge others by “recognizing” who has believed the lies. Paul is talking about the leadership of Titus to bring the truth to people who have been relying on “Jewish myths” and “have turned their backs on the truth.” (verse 14). This actually discredits your arguments even more because the “lies” that Paul was talking about were lies of religious traditions that people were following to appear spiritual and justify their salvation – very similar to the IFB. We could easily substituted “people who have been relying on IFB myths and have turned their backs on the truth” here. He is calling people who have substituted the truth of the gospel for the lie of traditions and religion defiled not the other way around. This is more of a salvation passage then anything else, not a call to the backslidden. Essentially, he’s reminding Titus that people who rely on “biblical doctrine” that isn’t in the bible aren’t really saved. He goes on the call them hypocrites in the next verse. This is about YOU Richard. Paul is warning Christians about people like you and your IFBisms (hey I just made up a new term – I like it).

      Second, Paul goes on in verse 15 to talk about the differences between believers and non-believers. Verse 15 isn’t about a believer who’s not listening to the truth. It’s about a contrast between a believer and a non-believer. Notice the word AND. AND is a coordinating conjunction. It ties two similar concepts or words. Paul is calling the non-believer defiled and (ironically) corrupt, not the believer. He’s saying that the non-believers who try to hide behind Jewish myths are believing lies and deceptions. It’s the EXACT opposite of what you say it’s about.

      This passage is also about hypocrisy as evidenced by the very next verse: 16 Such people (the defiled [ironically translated “corrupt” in the Bible I use] AND unbelieving) claim they know God, but they deny him by the way they live.” How does one get a “pure heart” Richard? Is it by following Christ or by following the IFB? It can’t be both. If you are following “Biblical truths and doctrines” as taught by the IFB then you aren’t following Christ. A person gets a “pure heart” by accepting Christ as their savior and being washed in forgiveness and grace. Paul isn’t saying that people who believe in the truth have pure hearts, he’s saying that people who are believers have pure hearts.

      So see what happens when you read the Bible through the filter of the “IFB doctrines”? You get a very skewed view of the Bible. As a result, what you’re actually doing is calling me “defiled and unbelieving”. So you’re not only judging my motives and my behaviors, but also my salvation. This is the epitome of what Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for in Matthew 23. And if you’re doing this to me then there’s no doubt that you’re doing this to the poor unsuspecting victims that sit in the church pews where you preach.

      Third, as stated earlier, if you cling to the claim that my experiences with the IFB have defiled my mind then according to the true interpretation of this passage you are setting the IFB up for teaching lies since, according to this passage, a mind is defiled by false teachings and deception. This fits very nicely into the theme of this site and the exact reason why it exists. So while you’re continuing to defile minds by promoting the IFB dogma I’m working to help heal those who have been defiled by sharing the truth. Paul told Titus in verse 13 of that passage to …rebuke them as sternly as necessary…”. Consider this site my stern rebuke to you and your ilk.

      Fourth, with the misinterpretation of this verse you have essentially told me that you think you have the truth and are therefore “pure and undefiled”. This holier than though attitude makes you corrupt Richard. By the way, do you really think that I’m going to be moved because you can shed tears while you blatantly lie to your congregation? You’re tears are nothing more than an attempt at distracting people from critically thinking about what you’re preaching. On some level I think you are aware that if the Bereans were to be sitting in your church service during your preaching you’d be in trouble. So you begin to shed tears in dramatic fashion to serve as a distraction. People see your tears and hear your passion and forget about the lies your trying to spread. You’re tears have no bearing on the truth.

      What’s ironic, here is that I’m doing the very thing that we’re admonished to do in this passage. I’m standing up to those who oppose the truth (i.e., IFB “doctrines”) and not allowing myself to be deceived by their lies and deception. That’s why this site is called “Baptist Deception”. I’m doing exactly what Paul tells Titus to do in verse 13: “rebuke them as sternly as necessary to make them strong in the faith.”.

      Everyone is welcome to come here and comment and even request a discussion, but when someone (like you) comes here to deceive me into thinking we’re having a debate/discussion only to find out that their motives were really to preach at me and judge me it won’t be tolerated. You’ve told me many times that this is a discussion to get to the truth, but now it’s glaringly clear that you have no interest in getting to the truth. You’ve done very well to live up to the IFB stereotype and I’m thankful that you’ve been such a shining example of what I speak out against.

      One of the reasons I was glad to take over this discussion is because I saw the same patterns in your comments as before. I banned you last time because of your pious self-righteousness and refusal to have an open discussion. You emailed me and promised that your intentions were to discuss not to preach so I allowed you to return and gave you a second chance. You took advantage of me and, as it turns out, were just lying. Well, fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. There won’t be a third time Richard. This is goodbye. Now that I know your true motives I’m not going to invest more time “discussing” these issues with you. As with others who have come and gone, I’ll truly miss our discussions.

      This wasn’t an easy decision, by the way. My heart grieves for you, Richard, it really does. But more so it grieves for the people you’re hurting and deceiving. I’ve come to the realization that I’m spending too much time “discussing” these issues with you and not enough time on why I’ve made this site in the first place. That wouldn’t be a bad thing if I knew that we were actually having a discussion to try and flesh out these issues. After what you said about me, though, I came to the realization that you aren’t really interested in discussing these things. You say you are and you try to act like you are, but you aren’t. Now that I know that you see me as vindictive and you’re motive is to try and change me I just can’t continue. God does want peace among believers Richard, but as long as there are denominations that can’t happen. It’s you and your “extra Biblical”, man-made doctrines that cause so much grief and strife among believers. I only wish you could see that.

      I wrestled with this decision a lot. I enjoy these types of discussions for several reasons. They really do help me flesh out what’s truth and help me gain a fresh perspective on scripture. They also provide evidence for what I speak out against and they help others see that they don’t have to be bullied and intimidated by people like you. It helps others realize that they can apply a little bit of God given logic to any situation and come out with a better, more clear understanding of the Bible than is afforded by relying on what some preacher in an IFB church says. The problem I have with you, though, is that you’re perpetuating the abuse in this format. Although I control a lot about this site I don’t control who visits and who like/dislikes the information. Should someone visit seeking help from their IFB trauma I don’t want them to see that I allowed you to perpetuate the abuse.

      So in summary, because of your continued lies, deceptions, inability to have a serious discussion and twisted view of me as some sort of project for you to fix, you are again banned. I’ve instructed the site moderator to block you. Goody bye Richard. I hope that one day you will be free of the IFB shackles that you wear.

      Looking forward to getting the money. Thanks again.

  312. Steve – An absolute wonderful exposition of scripture!

    I sat here with my NIV and KJV open and poured over your thoughts on the matter and also looked back at Richard’s, how haughty (Richard) is, I had called him on it as well. It just really begs the question, who do you think you are Richard? Seriously, pls examine yourself in this blinding light of scripture. If you can see your errors, admit it, it will refresh you soul!

    I will share something personal, just yesterday my Dad and Mom and I were having our morning devotions, I go to their house usually 5-6 days a week, they look fwd to it as well as me. They left their IFB about 2 yrs or so ago because of the absolute foolishness from the MOG, and obvious wrong, legalistic teachings. With that in mind, the legalism still lingers over both of them, on my Mom more than Dad. Anyway we were in 1 Samuel and not exactly sure how it came up, but we began to discuss legalistic teaching. I commented that if I had not participated in the IFB foolishness I may not have lost my family. My Mom took great exception to that attempting to either blame me for not leaving sooner (which btw I should have) or the ex. (blame anyone but the wrong teaching of the IFB, but she’s getting there, deprogramming takes awhile, ahhh, but when you get there, it is sweet!) But I tried to explain that “wrong teaching” can mess up families. And then today THIS! Hello!!!! (Steve I truly believe this was a God-thing) I like the NIV’s rendering “They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach”
    Yes wrong, legalistic, KJVonlyism, MOG standards, IFB doctrine (don’t misquote me if I’m used in a sermon illustration, Richard) I said IFB doctrine, not bible doctrine, in the case of the IFB’s that’s usually two very different things, can and “do” cause “households” to break up!!

    I don’t really want to beat on Richard anymore. Steve you spoke strongly but truthfully, and yes I do clealy see the love and care you are extending to Richard and those unfortunate enough to be listening to him. Richard throw off that Baptist mess, or at least the worst legalistic parts of it, it breaks up “homes” it sets people back under bondage, it frees no one.

    Tks Steve, this is mighty good stuff!!!

    1. Thanks Greg and thanks for sharing such a personal story. I was very emotional as I read that being reminded of my family and the problems the IFB has caused us. And to think that there are hundreds of thousands of other families out there going through the same turmoil as a result of this type of abuse. I hope that this has a greater impact then I realize. Things are a lot worse than I thought. We need to really kick it up a notch and warn people.

      I guess my passion shined through on my last comment. I got several emails of support, but a few very angry ones. It’s funny how I can be so confident in what the Lord has taught me, yet still need closure. Richard tried to get a comment through and then he tried to have his wife submit a comment. Our wonderful moderator filtered them out. She said they were pretty hateful. I also got a pretty hateful email from his wife this afternoon that made me cry. I feel so torn inside, but it’s good to have supporters and good to know that I’m doing the right thing.

      I was motivated to write that last comment because of Richard’s judgmentalism, the easiest thing to spot, but the thing that drove me off the deep end with this “discussion” was this sentence:

      Richard said:

      “This is unfair to yourself, unjust to those who are IFB because they believe Bible doctrine and believe in a particular kind of church governing, & undesired by God, who would much rather we endeavored to keep the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace among the church and within our fellowship with other believers.”

      I never saw such blatant manipulation in all my years in dealing with this. Usually it’s much more subtle – or maybe I’ve just gotten used to seeing it and can pick it out more easily now, I don’t know. But my goodness, just read over that sentence and let it sink in. “…IFB because they believe Bible doctrine…” as if they are the only one’s who believe “Bible doctrine”. “…& undesired by God,…” I wonder if he’s really omniscient or God tells him what he desires of everyone in the world. “…who would much rather we endeavored to keep the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace…” as if anyone who opposes the IFB is creating disunity and chaos when in actuality it’s the IFB that is causing disunity and chaos in the lives of the people it abuses. Of course unity and peace is great so long as it’s the IFB way of keeping unity and peace and so long as the unity and peace center around what the IFB believes right?

      WOW!!! I just can’t believe the blatant audacity. And he was still white knuckling it to the very end. I’m going to have our attorney on standby till things settle down.

      Well, I apologize for letting it get so out of control. I guess I let my passion get the better of me.

      Thanks again for your support.

  313. Steve – Stirred up quite a hornet’s nest huh! Good, it’s high time for these “High Priests” of fundyism to brought low, they have led enough people astray.

    I have been doing some more studying today. I looked everywhere to find anyone that interpreted Titus 1:15 as Richard does. To my knowledge no one that I could find, not in any commentary, even went to Baptist sites! I could not find anyone that believes that Titus 1:15 means that “Paul gives this simple, yet profound way to recognize those who believed the lies” Perhaps the only ones that believe Richard’s “new revelations” are those poor folks that have to listen to him in Texas, and I couldn’t get ahold of any of them.

    I looked at the following commentaries: Clarke’s, Matthew’s, Jamieson-Fausset, also consulted Gill’s Exposition of the entire bible, Vincent’s Word studies, Barne’s Notes on the Bible, and Wesley’s notes, and the Geneva Study Bible. I didn’t need any of them to know that Richard was full of horseshoes, but it is quite telling that none of them agree with him on Titus 1:15.

    Listen to what Gill’s Exposition on the entire bible says:

    “These Jews were for mixing the ceremonies of the law with the institutions of Christ: and it is to these were nothing pure.”

    Richard if the phone is ringing, pick it up. “Mixing law and grace” I submit that this is “exactly” what the IFB’s, or at least most of them do.

    A quote from a friend would be appropriate right here:

    How can people twist a gospel that is supposed to set us free, and turn it into a religion in which everything is always your fault? You’re not surrendered enough, you”re not trusting enough, you’re not humbled enough, it’s all about you and how you never measure up, instead of being about Christ.

    Gotta share this one from the “Geneva Study Bible”

    Paul shows in few words that purity consists not in any external worship, and that which is according to the old law (as indifference of meats and washings and other such things) which are abolished,) but in mind and conscience and whoever teaches otherwise does not know what true religion really is.

    Oh my, still mixing that grace and law and they just don’t mix, and the folks that are doing this don’t even know what true religion is!!!!

    Keep up the great work. Maybe you should go to Texas and do a w/end seminar, and bring some wonderful, lifegiving grace to those misled folks down there.

  314. Just want to clarify. Both the “Geneva Study Bible” as well as “Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible” were specifically discussing Titus 1:15 above.

    I also consulted, perhaps a dozen different translations, and one particular translation I would recommend to everyone is the “Net Bible” just google it, it is perhaps the best, free resource for bible study that I have ever come across, wasn’t much help on this subject, but is just a great resource nonetheless, and its free.

  315. Wow- My husband and I just left a IFB church (and took some of our extended family with us) because we noticed this same thing. The manipulation and control over peoples’ spiritual lives is so sad. We had hoped to stick it out and maybe make a difference there, but we would have had to compromise in so many areas to do that. I know my husband and I have both said (almost apologetically) to one another that this particular church seems very much like a cult…I guess we weren’t the only ones to see it!
    Now some of our close family is seeing it as well. It is fun to see them step away and be free to study Biblical matters on their own, read books by other authors, listen to other preachers, try other churches, listen to a variety of christian music (all of which was prohibited in this church)…listen to the Holy Spirit rather than just the preacher.
    Thanks for your website!

  316. Steve, what you said in your first text on this subject, toward the end of it; “Control over what to do, where to go and who to associate with is common among cults” and I certainly agree. This all is very prevalent in the IFB church I’m still in only because my wife wishes to remain in it. The part of “Who to associate with”, to enforce this one, in my mind, would most certainly take doing the thing that is an abomination to God (spreading discord amongst the brethren). I’ve heard the IFB pastor refer more than once to those who don’t do much more than “get saved” as those who will “get to heaven with smoke on their clothes.” I cannot help but believe that IFB pastor would be one such if there are any such that “get to heaven with smoke on their clothes”. Personally I feel that is a ridiculous statement.

  317. I get so upset because I don’t possess the ability to express my feelings of what I believe to be truth. This lack of ability makes me a very poor blogger as it leaves people confused about what I attempt to express. With this in mind, I need to try to better explain what I wrote yesterday. What I’ll do now is to only point out the main portion of what I wanted to point out concerning what Steve previously wrote, that being “control over . . . . who to associate with”. In order to initiate this action, the MOG needs to over-ride or disassociate himself from a warning God makes quite clear in Proverbs 6:16-19 whereas He states that there are six things that He hates, yet seven that is an abomination to Him, the way this is written, means that the seventh item listed is the one that is especially important and one should never, under any circumstance, involve themselves with, which is that of spreading discord amongst the brethren (this is the seventh thing listed amongst the other six things that God hates), so spreading discord amongst the brethren is actually nothing less that a horrible abomination to God. Now, since it is a fact that the MOG cannot (according to God’s Word) separate himself from the congregation by believing that since he is the MOG in his particular church, he can over-ride what God said is an abomination to Him and commit this abomination and it not be an abomination to God. If he feels that way, not only is he terribly confused but he is bound to be causing a great deal of his good works (if not all) to be burned up at the bema seat judgment, therefore not having anything more than one crown being the crown of salvation, to throw to the feet of Jesus. I remind any reader that God tells us that He will not share His glory with anyone [Isaiah 48:11b] so the MOG that tells people whom of the church, not to associate with because they are weak Christians because they do not attend all services, this act cannot be termed any other way than that of spreading discord amongst the brethren, since the so called “MOG” does not possess equality with God when ne does this abominable act against God almighty, he is bound to lose rewards that he worked so hard to earn. All his good works will be burned up because of the many abominable acts that he commits, not to mention his wrong teaching which misleads people in various aspects of life. One particular one that the pastor of the IFB church that I attend keeps drilling into the minds of the congregation (if they are indeed listening), is that God has to rely on created angels to provide Him with information about what’s going on in churches. This is so far off, I cannot hardly believe that he honestly believes this. It’s the epitome of stupidity (forgive me for using such a term) for a “MOG” to believe this. Being so terribly hard of hearing that I am, the only way I would know these things about the MOG is that I used to edit his full talks but now all I edit are the beginning and ending plus adjust the volume, to make them all somewhat uniform before placing them on the Internet. So now his talks probably contain mistakes but I got very tired of calling him, and playing back over the phone, what he said wrong, to see if he wants it removed, then to hear him say that he doesn’t know what I am talking about when I tell him that he is belittling God almighty. My bible tells me that I should not have anything to do with one who has a form of godliness but denies Gods power. Apparently the MOG at the church I attend but tune out things said there, does not know but I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I’ve committed undo Him against that day.

    Now, I need to quit visiting this site so I won