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
Loading ...
@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.)
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.
I misquoted myself, no wonder I misquote you.
“Consecrated people consecrate power.”
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.
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?
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.
@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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?!
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.
@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.”
@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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
So you’re saying that the tree of knowledge of good and evil is to blame for Adam’s willful disobedience?
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…
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.
@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.)
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?
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.
No, that’s not what my statement says nor even implies.
I gave you a basis for this. You refuse to acknowledge it, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
I gave you the evidence. Why do you ignore it?
I never said I didn’t understand them. Please re-read what I requested.
Great. I want $250,000 by this time next week. You can send your donation via PayPal via donations@baptistdeception.com 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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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:
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.
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.
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.