Diversity among IFB's.

[Tarheel Baptist]

Through a series of unplanned events, I ended up being with 4 of our county's largest IFB churches as they sent their teens off to summer camp.
The kids wore shorts and jeans...NOT a single long jean skirt or a pair of culottes could be found among the girls and ladies.
The young men almost exclusively wore shorts.
I know that at least 2 of the churches had a no pants on ladies conviction in the past, but obviously that has changed, although the leadership remains the same.
The IFB's down here are a'changin...at least their dress codes.

Is this (change) pretty standard among IFB's everywhere or is it just a NC phenomenon?


I wasn't able to see if they had Bible versions other than the KJV...

 

[subllibrm]

We rent our camp facilities out to a local IFB (Bible Baptist) church. They bring in youth from another 4-5 sister churches for a total of 150 people (campers and staff).

The girls no pants rule is in full effect and the boys must wear long pants. One thing that I notice is that the girls seem to compensate by using inordinate amounts of makeup.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

We rent our camp facilities out to a local IFB (Bible Baptist) church. They bring in youth from another 4-5 sister churches for a total of 150 people (campers and staff).

The girls no pants rule is in full effect and the boys must wear long pants. One thing that I notice is that the girls seem to compensate by using inordinate amounts of makeup.

I guess it?s just a regional thing.
This same group of IFB?s also embrace Southern Gospel music.

 

[Jubal Sackett]

If you're experiencing the same kind of heat that we are on our side of the mountains the change might be to keep everybody from dying.

Jubal Sackett

 

[Bruh]

People are asking, why. Yesteryear people didn?t do that, at least in most IFB churches. People want a chapter and verse within the context of scripture. Generation before mine didn?t need that, most not all, demand that in today?s churches.

 

[AlvinMartinezCCM]

Jack Trieber is ok with boys wearing shorts as is evident with the recent Youth Conference and has seemed to lighten up girls in shorts/pans etc. Same with facial hair.

One of the reasons why Joel McCarty left the IFB movement and the Vineyards was he grew his hair out and beard and went to the seeker sensitive model as he's a disciple of false teacher Carl Lentz and False Teacher Steven Furtick.

Jack Hyles would have a heart attack if he knew Bob Jones and PCC let the gals wear pants in the dorms. Hyles had a personal grudge against both institutions as he claimed they were "Too Liberal".

Comedian Tony Hutson (disciple of Hyles) is more open minded as well as being against sending the kids at his church to an IFB institution.

Comedian Larry Brown (disciple of Hyles) still follows Hyles' stance on women not wearing pants, listening to mainstream and secular music, watching television etc. He demonstrated this with his comedy routine at Pastor's School which Jack Schaap was the best sermon he ever heard.

Of course Tom & Jim Vineyard (disciples of Hyles) followed by the rules of Hyles and the elder Vineyard did until his final breath. Also the many former OBC students left the flock because of the strict rules such as McCarty, professional bodybuilder Jesse Jackson (grandson of Bob Ross who got in hot water for allowing children to be molested in his church).

Now for the perfect model of a young IFB and women is that of Gospel Recording Artists the Garraways and the world famous evangelist Caleb Garraway.

 

[T-Bone]

I guess the troll heard the Admin was away for a while and has snuck back in!

 

[Ransom]

I guess the troll heard the Admin was away for a while and has snuck back in!

And citing nothing but a whole bunch of authorities, like a good little Catholic boy.

 

[prophet]

Very astute observation, Sir.

I guess the troll heard the Admin was away for a while and has snuck back in!

And citing nothing but a whole bunch of authorities, like a good little Catholic boy.

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[ALAYMAN]

The trend is somewhat noticeable in my church, among the younger (pastor's adult children with children of their own) generation particularly.  I know of a couple of other local IFB former (and still, in some cases, moderately hardline) once-upon-a-time Indy-style churches who have also softened on the typical cotton candy stuff (movies, pants on wimmins, music style, etc).  Chalk it up to being "given to change". 

 

[subllibrm]

People are asking, why. Yesteryear people didn?t do that, at least in most IFB churches. People want a chapter and verse within the context of scripture. Generation before mine didn?t need that, most not all, demand that in today?s churches.

I'm not sure how to take this. Are you saying that asking why is a bad thing?

 

[Bruh]

People are asking, why. Yesteryear people didn?t do that, at least in most IFB churches. People want a chapter and verse within the context of scripture. Generation before mine didn?t need that, most not all, demand that in today?s churches.

I'm not sure how to take this. Are you saying that asking why is a bad thing?

No. Asking why is good.

IMO, some pastors don?t know what to do when people are asking why.

If it?s a preference, say it but don?t teach it as doctrine.

 

[cpizzle]

I'm not a big fan of requiring "chapter and verse" for everything.

God did not write the Bible as a "Hyles-Anderson Rulebook."  The "chapter/verse" mentality turns the Bible into a list of do's and don'ts. 

The Bible is a book of principles guiding in the proper path.  Sure, there are some "thou shalt's" and "thou shalt not's", but they are somewhat infrequent.  In fact, some of the clearest commands in scripture are easily understood to be part of the culture and not requirements (foot washing, women praying with their head covered, ect?)

The Pastor's job is to know the scripture, walk in the Spirit, and make proper applications of the Bible concerning the world today.  I can preach against Heroin, even though there is no "thou shalt not take Heroin" in scripture.  I can preach against "Game of Thrones" without a specific "chapter and verse." 

Now, no one is required to follow after my advice.  I don't "force" anyone to agree with my preaching, but I still preach what I believe to be correct.  I understand that giving the pastor the authority to make applications "beyond" clear and concise scripture is problematic for some.  Huckster and abusers can twist the scripture into anything they want.  Still, just because some don't preach "wrongly" doesn't mean that those who preach "rightly" must stop. 

 

[Bruh]

I'm not a big fan of requiring "chapter and verse" for everything.

God did not write the Bible as a "Hyles-Anderson Rulebook."  The "chapter/verse" mentality turns the Bible into a list of do's and don'ts. 

The Bible is a book of principles guiding in the proper path.  Sure, there are some "thou shalt's" and "thou shalt not's", but they are somewhat infrequent.  In fact, some of the clearest commands in scripture are easily understood to be part of the culture and not requirements (foot washing, women praying with their head covered, ect?)

The Pastor's job is to know the scripture, walk in the Spirit, and make proper applications of the Bible concerning the world today.  I can preach against Heroin, even though there is no "thou shalt not take Heroin" in scripture.  I can preach against "Game of Thrones" without a specific "chapter and verse." 

Now, no one is required to follow after my advice.  I don't "force" anyone to agree with my preaching, but I still preach what I believe to be correct.  I understand that giving the pastor the authority to make applications "beyond" clear and concise scripture is problematic for some.  Huckster and abusers can twist the scripture into anything they want.  Still, just because some don't preach "wrongly" doesn't mean that those who preach "rightly" must stop.

Why is this ok? I don't understand.

 

[cpizzle]

I'm not a big fan of requiring "chapter and verse" for everything.

God did not write the Bible as a "Hyles-Anderson Rulebook."  The "chapter/verse" mentality turns the Bible into a list of do's and don'ts. 

The Bible is a book of principles guiding in the proper path.  Sure, there are some "thou shalt's" and "thou shalt not's", but they are somewhat infrequent.  In fact, some of the clearest commands in scripture are easily understood to be part of the culture and not requirements (foot washing, women praying with their head covered, ect?)

The Pastor's job is to know the scripture, walk in the Spirit, and make proper applications of the Bible concerning the world today.  I can preach against Heroin, even though there is no "thou shalt not take Heroin" in scripture.  I can preach against "Game of Thrones" without a specific "chapter and verse." 

Now, no one is required to follow after my advice.  I don't "force" anyone to agree with my preaching, but I still preach what I believe to be correct.  I understand that giving the pastor the authority to make applications "beyond" clear and concise scripture is problematic for some.  Huckster and abusers can twist the scripture into anything they want.  Still, just because some don't preach "wrongly" doesn't mean that those who preach "rightly" must stop.

Why is this ok? I don't understand.

Not sure I understand what your question is?
If you are asking me why I defend pastors preaching on topics (sins?) outside of clearly defined scripture, then I think I made my point clear in the post.  The Bible is a book, not a collection of "chapters and verses."  It is intended to be our "final authority" but it is not an exhaustive list of do's and dont's.  The pastor should know the scripture, walk in the Spirit, have an "understanding of the times," and lead the Church in the best path possible in the world in which we live.