Where do go if I leave the IFB movement?

tmjbog said:
And I would be agreement on most of those things. But there are churches that do get it right on most if not all of those. Again it's weird to be the guy sticking up for IFB. When the new pastor came to our church several years ago he stopped the congregation from clapping and hootin and hollering when the pastors came on stage. One small step in the right direction anyway.
Click to expand...

I must admit, I'm surprised at what impresses you. That's not even worth mentioning.
 
tmjbog said:
Well I did say one small step. You have to admit many IFBs would allow the man adoration to continue.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it still did.... in more ways than one.

I've been in IFB preacher fellowships where certain men got standing ovations for giving sermon you couldn't understand hardly a word that came out their mouth because they were hollering it so loudly the PA was busting out...... and then total silence when another preacher started hitting on "man worship". I've seen them bring their own cheerleaders from their church to revivals they were preaching and you couldn't hardly hear the preacher from the cheers in the audience...... But as soon as they stepped down and another person started preaching...... total silence.

It makes be sick to even think about it anymore.
 
Well, at least he was smart enough to be Baptist.😉
 
ALAYMAN said:
Well, at least he was smart enough to be Baptist.😉
Click to expand...

He was the only real one. That is why he is called "THE" in the Scriptures. You know. The definitive article. John was as much The Baptist as Jesus is THE Christ. There are no more. They like to claim they are but they're not.
 
And that's why Alfred of England is the only historical figure ever to be titled "The Great."

There can be only one. That's what "the" means.

(John was called "the Baptist" because his distinguishing characteristic was that he baptized people. Do you seriously think he was the only person, even in his own day, who did baptism?)
 
treasure_unseen said:
He was the only real one. That is why he is called "THE" in the Scriptures. You know. The definitive article. John was as much The Baptist as Jesus is THE Christ. There are no more. They like to claim they are but they're not.
Click to expand...

I will be sure to tell Roger Williams, Benjamin Keach, billions of people, and my pastor to stop lying about their demominational affiliation.
 
ALAYMAN said:
I will be sure to tell Roger Williams, Benjamin Keach, billions of people, and my pastor to stop lying about their demominational affiliation.
Click to expand...

Roger Williams? Say it ain't so!!!

Surely you're not hooked up with him?

John never wanted you calling yourself after him.

Why don't you believe the Scriptures? Do you even know what the definitive article is?
 
treasure_unseen said:
John never wanted you call yourself after him.
Click to expand...
You realize "Baptist" wasn't his name, right?
Do you even know what the definitive article is?
Click to expand...
Yes. When used with a title (like "the Baptist," "the Elder," and so forth), it denotes specificity. John was called "the Baptist" because it specified which John was being talked about--the itinerant preacher who baptized people, not some other John. Just as Pliny the Elder is so called to distinguish him from his nephew, Pliny the Younger. And so forth.

It has nothing to do with exclusivity.
 
Last edited:
Ransom said:
And that's why Alfred of England is the only historical figure ever to be titled "The Great."

There can be only one. That's what "the" means.

(John was called "the Baptist" because his distinguishing characteristic was that he baptized people. Do you seriously think he was the only person, even in his own day, who did baptism?)
Click to expand...

So you're a Greek student and you don't know what the definitive article is?

John was "THE" Baptist because he carried a distinct designation in Biblical History. No other person carried that title through the entire of written Scripture throughout the early church... even though... there were plenty that baptized. Even John's own disciples weren't called "the baptist".
 
treasure_unseen said:
Title. You trying to make a meaningless distinction between the two?
Click to expand...
I have my issues with IFB and agree with you to an extent on some of their issues. However, I would take the worst of the Hyles type IFB over a Treasure type church that spends their time and energy focusing on gnats. Of course there are churches that Baptize people and if those churches choose to call themselves Baptist to recognize they baptize what Scripture are you going to try to twist to claim it should not be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top