New Independent Baptist

[Bruh]

This topic was discussed upstairs. I thought I would post it down here and see what the hacker nation has to say about this "New Independent Baptist".

http://joshteis.com/home/2015/12/01/the-new-independent-baptist/

Josh is definitely being criticized by many in the IFB on Twitter ppl like Fugate and his son and others.

 

[cpizzle]

I think they have a lot of good ideas and I agree with much of what the article says.

However, I also notice arrogance and superiority (though this would be denied and intentionally veiled.)  I also believe much of the new movement is rooted in the desires of the flesh and not so much the Holy Spirit.  I read their condescending posts on Social Media and watch as young, worldly millennial's fawn over them for making them feel good about their own compromises. 

Good people, certainly!  Are their motives pure....mostly so.  They are my friends and fellow Christians, but the movement itself is not my cup of tea. 

Finally....changing what you are legalistic over is still legalism.  Saying that you should only sing songs that directly address God (singing to him, instead of singing about him) is still legalism.  Saying you should only preach expository sermons is still legalism.  Promoting casual dress as superior to Sunday Best is still legalism. 

Independent Baptists have been in a legalistic ditch for many years.  I believe my Generation (the folks who were in school when Dr. Hyles died) are making much needed course corrections.  Unfortunately, I am afraid they are going to swerve to far and just end up in another ditch.

 

[prophet]

I think they have a lot of good ideas and I agree with much of what the article says.

However, I also notice arrogance and superiority (though this would be denied and intentionally veiled.)  I also believe much of the new movement is rooted in the desires of the flesh and not so much the Holy Spirit.  I read their condescending posts on Social Media and watch as young, worldly millennial's fawn over them for making them feel good about their own compromises. 

Good people, certainly!  Are their motives pure....mostly so.  They are my friends and fellow Christians, but the movement itself is not my cup of tea. 

Finally....changing what you are legalistic over is still legalism.  Saying that you should only sing songs that directly address God (singing to him, instead of singing about him) is still legalism.  Saying you should only preach expository sermons is still legalism.  Promoting casual dress as superior to Sunday Best is still legalism. 

Independent Baptists have been in a legalistic ditch for many years.  I believe my Generation (the folks who were in school when Dr. Hyles died) are making much needed course corrections.  Unfortunately, I am afraid they are going to swerve to far and just end up in another ditch.

Excellent post.

Earnestly Contend

 

[Bruh]

I think they have a lot of good ideas and I agree with much of what the article says.

However, I also notice arrogance and superiority (though this would be denied and intentionally veiled.)  I also believe much of the new movement is rooted in the desires of the flesh and not so much the Holy Spirit.  I read their condescending posts on Social Media and watch as young, worldly millennial's fawn over them for making them feel good about their own compromises. 

Good people, certainly!  Are their motives pure....mostly so.  They are my friends and fellow Christians, but the movement itself is not my cup of tea. 

Finally....changing what you are legalistic over is still legalism.  Saying that you should only sing songs that directly address God (singing to him, instead of singing about him) is still legalism.  Saying you should only preach expository sermons is still legalism.  Promoting casual dress as superior to Sunday Best is still legalism. 

Independent Baptists have been in a legalistic ditch for many years.  I believe my Generation (the folks who were in school when Dr. Hyles died) are making much needed course corrections.  Unfortunately, I am afraid they are going to swerve to far and just end up in another ditch.

What compromises? What worldliness? What was unbiblical about the post?

Not trying to be contentious, genuinely curious.

 

[Bruh]

Those that disagree with the "New Independent Baptist " do you believe that Paul Chappell has anything to do with this.

Most if not all go to his conferences, this is why I ask the question.

 

[cpizzle]

I think they have a lot of good ideas and I agree with much of what the article says.

However, I also notice arrogance and superiority (though this would be denied and intentionally veiled.)  I also believe much of the new movement is rooted in the desires of the flesh and not so much the Holy Spirit.  I read their condescending posts on Social Media and watch as young, worldly millennial's fawn over them for making them feel good about their own compromises. 

Good people, certainly!  Are their motives pure....mostly so.  They are my friends and fellow Christians, but the movement itself is not my cup of tea. 

Finally....changing what you are legalistic over is still legalism.  Saying that you should only sing songs that directly address God (singing to him, instead of singing about him) is still legalism.  Saying you should only preach expository sermons is still legalism.  Promoting casual dress as superior to Sunday Best is still legalism. 

Independent Baptists have been in a legalistic ditch for many years.  I believe my Generation (the folks who were in school when Dr. Hyles died) are making much needed course corrections.  Unfortunately, I am afraid they are going to swerve to far and just end up in another ditch.

What compromises? What worldliness? What was unbiblical about the post?

Not trying to be contentious, genuinely curious.

Worldliness and Compromise are subjective...everyone will look at it differently.  My views would be difficult to explain in person because they are not "black and white."  It is even more difficult to express in a paragraph or two of written word.

Without getting into great details that will cause conflicts, I see worldliness and compromise in CCM (not all, but most) and the focus on Pop Culture.  I am sure I watch and listen to things I shouldn't, but I never speak positively about them from the pulpit   There are plenty of crazy standards that I certainly don't preach about anymore, because they are man made and not Biblical.  The new IB's, (some of them anyway), promote the breaking of standards and encourage a more carnal lifestyle.  I don't preach against going to the beach, but I don't preach we should go to the beach either.  I don't believe that there is a universal condemnation of any and all instances of alcohol in the Bible...but I don't encourage folks to drink...even in moderation.

The new IB's, (some of them anyway), promote the breaking of standards and encourage a more carnal lifestyle.  In my opinion (for what it's worth), the underlying motive is about gathering fellow compromisers so there is no shame in the lack of separation.

Here is what they sound like to me, "We like the Newsboys, The Walking Dead, and posting pictures of ourselves on Facebook after our workouts  in our Yoga Pants and sports bra.  Let's start a church where we don't have to feel bad about that."

Thanks!

 

[IFB X-Files]

This topic was discussed upstairs. I thought I would post it down here and see what the hacker nation has to say about this "New Independent Baptist".

http://joshteis.com/home/2015/12/01/the-new-independent-baptist/

Dan Wolfe

December 2, 2015 at 3:51 am

I?m afraid you?re a bit naive and not fully acquainted with the history of Independent Baptists. I am a bit older and have known the men who knew the men who started the Independent Baptist movement. From what I?ve witnessed, there has always been pastors like the ones you describe as new. I don?t see it as a new thing. Perhaps it?s new to you cause you have broken away from a tight circle of pastors who you feel lead opposite of your points. It seems like you are stereotyping all based on your limited experience. Plus, I don?t think all who you deem as Old IB necessarily fit the negative pall you cast in the points of your article, nor do I feel all your self defined ?new? IB adhere to each ?positive? virtue you ascribe them. I do think that any man who answers the call of God to pastor answers a high calling and should be lead of God to lead his flock. Not judged or measured by the Old IB pastors or the New IB standards you propose.

 

[BALAAM]

I just wish that they would all drop the "I" from their ifb. Chinaca Bugger calls them the NADD baptists which I think is much more descriptive. (not a denomination denomination)

 

[IFB X-Files]

I just wish that they would all drop the "I" from their ifb. Chinaca Bugger calls them the NADD baptists which I think is much more descriptive. (not a denomination denomination)

Who is the 'they" to whom you refer?

 

[Bruh]

I think they have a lot of good ideas and I agree with much of what the article says.

However, I also notice arrogance and superiority (though this would be denied and intentionally veiled.)  I also believe much of the new movement is rooted in the desires of the flesh and not so much the Holy Spirit.  I read their condescending posts on Social Media and watch as young, worldly millennial's fawn over them for making them feel good about their own compromises. 

Good people, certainly!  Are their motives pure....mostly so.  They are my friends and fellow Christians, but the movement itself is not my cup of tea. 

Finally....changing what you are legalistic over is still legalism.  Saying that you should only sing songs that directly address God (singing to him, instead of singing about him) is still legalism.  Saying you should only preach expository sermons is still legalism.  Promoting casual dress as superior to Sunday Best is still legalism. 

Independent Baptists have been in a legalistic ditch for many years.  I believe my Generation (the folks who were in school when Dr. Hyles died) are making much needed course corrections.  Unfortunately, I am afraid they are going to swerve to far and just end up in another ditch.

What compromises? What worldliness? What was unbiblical about the post?

Not trying to be contentious, genuinely curious.

Worldliness and Compromise are subjective...everyone will look at it differently.  My views would be difficult to explain in person because they are not "black and white."  It is even more difficult to express in a paragraph or two of written word.

Without getting into great details that will cause conflicts, I see worldliness and compromise in CCM (not all, but most) and the focus on Pop Culture.  I am sure I watch and listen to things I shouldn't, but I never speak positively about them from the pulpit   There are plenty of crazy standards that I certainly don't preach about anymore, because they are man made and not Biblical.  The new IB's, (some of them anyway), promote the breaking of standards and encourage a more carnal lifestyle.  I don't preach against going to the beach, but I don't preach we should go to the beach either.  I don't believe that there is a universal condemnation of any and all instances of alcohol in the Bible...but I don't encourage folks to drink...even in moderation.

The new IB's, (some of them anyway), promote the breaking of standards and encourage a more carnal lifestyle.  In my opinion (for what it's worth), the underlying motive is about gathering fellow compromisers so there is no shame in the lack of separation.

Here is what they sound like to me, "We like the Newsboys, The Walking Dead, and posting pictures of ourselves on Facebook after our workouts  in our Yoga Pants and sports bra.  Let's start a church where we don't have to feel bad about that."

Thanks!

I appreciate and see the sincerity in ur post.

But ur last paragraph sums up the whole of ur post.

The Walking Dead, yoga pants, sports bra, maybe I'm not reading and following the same guys you are but I don't see those post of pictures and blogs.

Maybe you can post links? So I can see this.

 

[RAIDER]

I believe cpizzle has some good points. Basically the "New Independent Baptist" wants to get away from many of the standards  (dress, music, and entertainment being the main focus) and still hold on to the name.  Dan Wolfe is correct when he says that this is nothing new.  This type of church has been around for MANY years.  They just didn't call themselves the "New Independent Baptists". 

Eric Capaci and Gospel Light in Hot Springs would be a good example of this "movement". 

 

[prophet]

I think they have a lot of good ideas and I agree with much of what the article says.

However, I also notice arrogance and superiority (though this would be denied and intentionally veiled.)  I also believe much of the new movement is rooted in the desires of the flesh and not so much the Holy Spirit.  I read their condescending posts on Social Media and watch as young, worldly millennial's fawn over them for making them feel good about their own compromises. 

Good people, certainly!  Are their motives pure....mostly so.  They are my friends and fellow Christians, but the movement itself is not my cup of tea. 

Finally....changing what you are legalistic over is still legalism.  Saying that you should only sing songs that directly address God (singing to him, instead of singing about him) is still legalism.  Saying you should only preach expository sermons is still legalism.  Promoting casual dress as superior to Sunday Best is still legalism. 

Independent Baptists have been in a legalistic ditch for many years.  I believe my Generation (the folks who were in school when Dr. Hyles died) are making much needed course corrections.  Unfortunately, I am afraid they are going to swerve to far and just end up in another ditch.

What compromises? What worldliness? What was unbiblical about the post?

Not trying to be contentious, genuinely curious.

Worldliness and Compromise are subjective...everyone will look at it differently.

Without getting into great details that will cause conflicts, I see worldliness and compromise in CCM (not all, but most) and the focus on Pop Culture.  I am sure I watch and listen to things I shouldn't, but I never speak positively about them from the pulpit   There are plenty of crazy standards that I certainly don't preach about anymore, because they are man made and not Biblical.  The new IB's, (some of them anyway), promote the breaking of standards and encourage a more carnal lifestyle.  I don't preach against going to the beach, but I don't preach we should go to the beach either.  I don't believe that there is a universal condemnation of any and all instances of alcohol in the Bible...but I don't encourage folks to drink...even in moderation.

This, for 1^^^^

Earnestly Contend

 

[prophet]

I believe cpizzle has some good points. Basically the "New Independent Baptist" wants to get away from many of the standards  (dress, music, and entertainment being the main focus) and still hold on to the name.  Dan Wolfe is correct when he says that this is nothing new.  This type of church has been around for MANY years.  They just didn't call themselves the "New Independent Baptists". 

Eric Capaci and Gospel Light in Hot Springs would be a good example of this "movement".

Walk 10 paces away, and then whistle....
Whoever shows up is part of a new movement.

Earnestly Contend

 

[Bruh]

I believe cpizzle has some good points. Basically the "New Independent Baptist" wants to get away from many of the standards  (dress, music, and entertainment being the main focus) and still hold on to the name.  Dan Wolfe is correct when he says that this is nothing new.  This type of church has been around for MANY years.  They just didn't call themselves the "New Independent Baptists". 

Eric Capaci and Gospel Light in Hot Springs would be a good example of this "movement".

Ok, like what standards do they want to get away from?

Music? What music do they use?

And entertainment what exactly are you talking about here?

What about his blog post was unbiblical?

 

[fishinnut]

I think they have a lot of good ideas and I agree with much of what the article says.

However, I also notice arrogance and superiority (though this would be denied and intentionally veiled.)  I also believe much of the new movement is rooted in the desires of the flesh and not so much the Holy Spirit.  I read their condescending posts on Social Media and watch as young, worldly millennial's fawn over them for making them feel good about their own compromises. 

Good people, certainly!  Are their motives pure....mostly so.  They are my friends and fellow Christians, but the movement itself is not my cup of tea. 

Finally....changing what you are legalistic over is still legalism.  Saying that you should only sing songs that directly address God (singing to him, instead of singing about him) is still legalism.  Saying you should only preach expository sermons is still legalism.  Promoting casual dress as superior to Sunday Best is still legalism. 

Independent Baptists have been in a legalistic ditch for many years.  I believe my Generation (the folks who were in school when Dr. Hyles died) are making much needed course corrections.  Unfortunately, I am afraid they are going to swerve to far and just end up in another ditch.

What compromises? What worldliness? What was unbiblical about the post?

Not trying to be contentious, genuinely curious.

Worldliness and Compromise are subjective...everyone will look at it differently.  My views would be difficult to explain in person because they are not "black and white."  It is even more difficult to express in a paragraph or two of written word.

Without getting into great details that will cause conflicts, I see worldliness and compromise in CCM (not all, but most) and the focus on Pop Culture.  I am sure I watch and listen to things I shouldn't, but I never speak positively about them from the pulpit   There are plenty of crazy standards that I certainly don't preach about anymore, because they are man made and not Biblical.  The new IB's, (some of them anyway), promote the breaking of standards and encourage a more carnal lifestyle.  I don't preach against going to the beach, but I don't preach we should go to the beach either.  I don't believe that there is a universal condemnation of any and all instances of alcohol in the Bible...but I don't encourage folks to drink...even in moderation.

The new IB's, (some of them anyway), promote the breaking of standards and encourage a more carnal lifestyle.  In my opinion (for what it's worth), the underlying motive is about gathering fellow compromisers so there is no shame in the lack of separation.

Here is what they sound like to me, "We like the Newsboys, The Walking Dead, and posting pictures of ourselves on Facebook after our workouts  in our Yoga Pants and sports bra.  Let's start a church where we don't have to feel bad about that."

Thanks!

You should go to the beach!

 

[16KJV11]

I think they have a lot of good ideas and I agree with much of what the article says.

However, I also notice arrogance and superiority (though this would be denied and intentionally veiled.)  I also believe much of the new movement is rooted in the desires of the flesh and not so much the Holy Spirit.  I read their condescending posts on Social Media and watch as young, worldly millennial's fawn over them for making them feel good about their own compromises. 

Good people, certainly!  Are their motives pure....mostly so.  They are my friends and fellow Christians, but the movement itself is not my cup of tea. 

Finally....changing what you are legalistic over is still legalism.  Saying that you should only sing songs that directly address God (singing to him, instead of singing about him) is still legalism.  Saying you should only preach expository sermons is still legalism.  Promoting casual dress as superior to Sunday Best is still legalism. 

Independent Baptists have been in a legalistic ditch for many years.  I believe my Generation (the folks who were in school when Dr. Hyles died) are making much needed course corrections.  Unfortunately, I am afraid they are going to swerve to far and just end up in another ditch.

What compromises? What worldliness? What was unbiblical about the post?

Not trying to be contentious, genuinely curious.

Worldliness and Compromise are subjective...everyone will look at it differently.  My views would be difficult to explain in person because they are not "black and white."  It is even more difficult to express in a paragraph or two of written word.

Without getting into great details that will cause conflicts, I see worldliness and compromise in CCM (not all, but most) and the focus on Pop Culture.  I am sure I watch and listen to things I shouldn't, but I never speak positively about them from the pulpit   There are plenty of crazy standards that I certainly don't preach about anymore, because they are man made and not Biblical.  The new IB's, (some of them anyway), promote the breaking of standards and encourage a more carnal lifestyle.  I don't preach against going to the beach, but I don't preach we should go to the beach either.  I don't believe that there is a universal condemnation of any and all instances of alcohol in the Bible...but I don't encourage folks to drink...even in moderation.

The new IB's, (some of them anyway), promote the breaking of standards and encourage a more carnal lifestyle.  In my opinion (for what it's worth), the underlying motive is about gathering fellow compromisers so there is no shame in the lack of separation.

Here is what they sound like to me, "We like the Newsboys, The Walking Dead, and posting pictures of ourselves on Facebook after our workouts  in our Yoga Pants and sports bra.  Let's start a church where we don't have to feel bad about that."

Thanks!

You should go to the beach!

You might see RAIDER there in his SPEEDO!

 

[Binaca Chugger]

I posted this on the other thread, but will copy it here:

I guess when the IFB leadership tweets out their opposition to this blog post by pastor Teis, they are making a public statement that they are:

1.  NOT obsessed with the Gospel.  Apparently they want people to know that the Gospel is not very important to them and you should not expect to hear it at their church.  Instead, you will hear their own rantings about whatever plucked their feathers this morning.

2.  NOT committed to preaching the Bible.  This is evident if you listen to a handful of their sermons.  One brief passage is read during the service, then a rant begins, that normally is not associated with the context of the passage at all.  I guess the IFB leadership wants people to know that they will be preaching, just not preaching the Bible.

3.  ENJOY preaching against other people.  Just so this is clear, the IFB leadership will loudly and frequently criticize other Christians.  They want us to know that they are accusers of the brethren (See Rev 12:10), and gleefully speak evil of God Himself (See James 4:10-11 and Rom 2:1-2 and Rom 14).

4.  ENJOY denominational politics.  So much for being independent.  I guess they are no longer autonomous, which is why I call them the Not-A-Denomination-Denomination.

5.  REJECT fiscal accountability.  This is obvious.  Just look at how well the leadership and his well positioned minions are cared for - the cars they drive, the suits they wear, the vacations they take, the homes they live in - while minor staff are told to just pray for their bills to be met and the hurting in their church are ignored.  Apparently the IFB leadership want all to know that they are not to be trusted with money since they reject fiscal accountability.

6.  are INTENTIONALLY ignorant.  Maybe they can't read or maybe they are afraid of information.  Whatever their reason is, they do not like reading and refuse to educate themselves.  I guess this goes along with all of the phony degrees that are thrown about in their movement.

7.  Just Quitting.  If only they would....

 

[Bruh]

In the N.T., preachers stood against false teachers. I fear we now stand against friends who do things a little differently than us.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

I see allot of fundies responding to the original blog post with allot of hate.  They are also making allot of false accusations against this pastor (so much for the 9th commandment).  His points should be agreed with by anyone naming the name of Christ.  The hyper-fundy, 100% Hyles, #OldPaths crowd is being very vocal on their social networks that they are in absolute agreement with my previous post.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Let me try to help some of the old guard understand what I see happening to their movement. 

Some of us grew up in the Hyles era of the IFB.  We are in love with God and dedicated to a relationship with Him and giving the Gospel.  We made decisions as the old guard preached to stand up, stand up for Jesus.  We made personal decisions to be separated from the world system and to sacrifice any and all to get the message of the Gospel to the world around us.

Then, we realized the old guard were lying heretics.  They did not stand up for Jesus, they stood up for their pride of self.  They stood by and watched as children were abused and raped.  They helped to cover the crime and pass the offenders off as good people and promoted them to other positions in their ministry.  The movement was riddled with sexual misconduct.  The movement was riddled with cover-ups.  The movement believed that the pride of a leader's name was more important than what is right.  There was no standing up for Jesus, there was cover up for leaders. 

To direct our gaze off of the sin of the leaders, strange doctrines were invented and fights were started to rally the wagons against "Those wicked _______ (fill in the blank with whatever ruffled your feathers)."  We were taught that minor doctrines were fundamentals upon which we should separate fellowship.  To help justify this separation, we should proclaim our rightness and loudly decry the other parties unwillingness to be just like us.

This tactic of misdirection became the catalyst that has held the movement together, while strangely destroying the movement at the same time.  Major churches and Bible colleges in the movement turned on each other for not being just like each other.  HAC graduates turned on each other for not being just like each other.  HAC ministries turned on each other for not being just like each other.

Prosperity Gospel abounded as proclaimed evidence that a particular ministry really was right with God, hence all others were stinkin' liberals who don't love God and probably aren't even saved.  A strange form of legalism (not for salvation, but for the Christian life) was the end result of this mayhem.





There are some of us who are sick and tired of the game the old guard has played.  We want to go back to the Fundamentals.  We still have our love for the Saviour.  We still have our personal standards and we are still committed to getting the Gospel out to our communities and beyond.  We are no longer committed to your leaders.  We are committed to our heavenly Leader.  We are no longer committed to doing everything the way you think we should.  We are committed to Christ and Him crucified.  We no longer wish to attend your conferences to hear you "rip" some other ministry apart.  We want to be challenged to glorify Christ.  We are sickened by your intentional ignorance.  We will study the Scripture and talk with others to discover how we can help people understand the peace of God in their life.

Call us the New IFB.  Call us Millennials.  Call us Compromisers.  Make fun of us.  Rant about whatever sin you think we wish to enjoy.  Keep posting pictures of your vanity and how you think your vanity is God blessing you.  Go ahead.  But know this.  Your movement is dying with you.  We no longer wish to keep your dirty little secrets for sake of the ministry.  There is a group of Baptist who wish to restore Christ as paramount in the church.