christundivided said:
You ignored half of what I wrote. I gave a clear theological basis for my view. Its not my fault you're having problems addressing it You preach a Christ "wrapped" in all things "IFB". A Christ beholden to your own carnal doctrine. This is exactly what is addressed in Col 2:8. Exactly. You attempted to exclude the application of Col 2:8 by claiming it only has an application toward
"the proto-Gnostic “Asian” Jews who were teaching “their philosophy” and not the Word of God"
Eat your own words.
No, I didn't ignore half of what you said. I ignored more than half because it is a terrible exegesis. I stand on the facts that Paul was addressing. I didn’t say it could only be applied to the proto-Gnostic “Asian” Jews who were teaching “their philosophy” and not the Word of God. I said that is what Paul was addressing so we should be careful to understand it in its historic context, to whom it was written and why. Again I implore you, go do some studying. However, I don't think you will since it seems you are so steeped in your pride. I'll offer just one of the commentaries on the passage:
JFB: “Beware (literally, ‘Look’ well) lest there shall be (as I fear there is: the Greek indicative expresses this) any man (pointing to some known emissary of evil, Gal_1:7) leading you away as his spoil (not merely gaining spoil out of you, but making yourselves his spoil) through (by means of) his philosophy,” etc. The apostle does not condemn all philosophy, but “the philosophy” (so Greek) of the Judaic-oriental heretics at Colosse, which afterwards was developed into Gnosticism. You, who may have “the riches of full assurance” and “the treasures of wisdom,” should not suffer yourselves to be led away as a spoil by empty, deceitful philosophy: “riches” are contrasted with spoil; “full” with “vain,” or empty (Col_2:2, Col_2:3, Col_2:9).
The philosophy of which the church at Colosse was
“the philosophy” (so Greek) of the Judaic-oriental heretics at Colosse, which afterwards was developed into Gnosticism. This philosophy was not according to Christ. I do not believe that it would be a stretch to say that the said philosophy conflicted with the doctrines of Christ. Especially those having to do with salvation since Judiazers taught keeping the law for salvation.
I’ll treat this point is closed since I am looking at it from a let scripture interpret scripture view point while you are using it as a spring board for your three point demagoguery.
christundivided said:
The word "within" changes nothing in application. I have chosen my words wisely. You're the one using the term "IFB" and "body of Christ" interchangeably as if there are no differences in the two. I did not say you combined anything. I used the word "conflate". There is a difference between "combining terms" and "intermixing terms".
Really? Let’s see who’s right.
Merriam-Webster Definition:
Conflate - (transitive verb)
1. a. to bring together fuse b.: confuse
2: to combine (as two readings of a text) into a composite whole
Who’s right? Yeah, I thought so. Me. You lose another point.
christundivided said:
You're also justifying bad behavior by point at other bad behavior. You sound like a little child that says.... "but daddy. They do it too."
Am not!

Desperate grasping of a pinned wrestler, indeed.
christundivided said:
You don't police your group? Really? Isn't it so very convenient to embrace them at every hand in your defense and then claim the word "independent" allows you to distance yourself from them whenever you choose. Are you defending IFBdom or are you just defending your church?
I’ll point out to you what every other poster here has on your whacked-out original thread - we believe and practice a church polity that is independent. The local, called out assembly biblically polices itself. When it doesn’t, we point out the error and we don’t run and hide.
christundivided said:
You're the one that gave a 20 percent estimate. I wouldn't call 20 percent a "small minority".
I, unlike you it seems, was being honest. That percentage is based on an accurate estimate of my area. I don’t twist or, worse yet, refuse to provide numbers. I would also reasonably assume that the ratio is lower in some areas and slightly higher in others.
christundivided said:
You know you tolerate them. You know you fellowship among them. You willingly remain silent while they deceive others. Typical. Have you ever preached against "briders" in any of these camp meetings?
There’s a whole lot of “you” going on in that section. When a person makes blanket statements and accusations about another’s actions without knowledge of the same, especially when the actions of the accused are the exact opposite, it is considered....wait for it....stupid. Thanks for, again, doing a great deal to prove my position in this debate.
Now, for your education, I have addressed three pastors of which two are college presidents on the topics of “Landmarkism” and “Baptist Bride” teachings. I explained my position and why I did not believe their positions were correct. Even though we agreed to disagree on subject, we continued to be friendly with one another but I have not been invited to preach at any of their meetings. Since this topic is not a fundamental of the faith, so there is no need for separation.
christundivided said:
At last, you embrace Citadel's argument.... I call myself an American because I am a US citizen. I assume you were born a IFB?
It is not just Citadel’s argument. It is a valid example if it is taken in by a rational mind that is not twisted with hatred. The analogy is that we are born into the Body of Christ much like the human race. You didn’t pick were you were born again did you? We believers are all in Him but have different affiliations and doctrinal leanings. Yes, I happen to believe that being identified as an American is the best of all human conditions on the planet. You can disagree and leave if you wish. Yes, I believe that being an IFB, as defined and practiced historically, is a very good place to be. You didn’t and left.
Seriously, what church do you attend? You sound like Church of Christ. You know, that group started by Campbell, a Baptist pastor who decided that the church needed to be unified under his vision of the restored ....oh, never mind.
christundivided said:
No heroes? How can you claim a tradition without holding to "heroes" of that tradition? In the good Christian tradition, I claim heroes in Paul, Peter, John, Apollos, and etc.
I know this is getting hard to follow but I didn’t say I no heroes. I said “I have no ‘heroes of the faith’ except those who have finished the race well”. That would include Paul, Peter, John (both of them), Apollos, and etc. I think that our “etc.” are more alike than you would care to admit.
christundivided said:
There are many that have shared in what you call my "subjective personal experience". Mine isn't an isolated example. If I had witnessed to what others had said, you'd say I'm going on "second hand" information. If I witness to personal experience, you say its subjective and isolated. So predictable. It reminds me of ....
Many is a relative term. You are the one making broad generalizations and casting stereotypes about a large group within the Body of Christ. You are also telling me what I would say before I say it. What I am asking for, and what you are not giving, is proof or substantial evidence of validity. It is clear that you certainly can’t prove that all IFBs should be considered stupid so you have run off on tangents trying to prove they are “systematic failures” while producing no credible argument of such. Since you won’t produce any data, I will give mine.
I have been in close to 300 of the 8,500 - 10,000+ IFB churches in the US in the past 38 years. My direct knowledge only covers less than 3% of all IFBs. Of that 3%, I can say that I have solid knowledge of about 50 of those churches. Of that amount, I would say maybe 25% could be, somehow at some remote level, placed in your cookie cutter. Extrapolate those figures across of all the IFB movement if you wish. And as small as my sample is, yours, I understand, is much smaller.
I’m saying that there are far more good than bad (in the broadest spectrum of the word) within the IFBs. There is a commonly accepted truth that bad news gets more publicity than the good news. Since it is convenient for your position, no matter how weak it is, that is all you care to hear.
christundivided said:
Did I hit a nerve? Why does all these failures keep rising among you? I'm sorry brother, you know you're living like "kings". God warned Israel when they desired a "king".... and He let them have exactly what they wanted. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
No, you just keep sinking to that low-life level thinking that repeating it over and over makes it true (ad nausea) and that particular subject does anger me. If you really don’t see yourself broad brushing and stereotyping then your condition may indeed be pathological.
I, and all those I know within the IFB movement here in my area, do not live as “kings”. We have a congregational polity with church constitutions and bylaws that prevent abuses. I have no idea of who gives what to our church because I do not see the giving records. I cannot sign a church check without someone else’s approval. I have elders who serve as deacons and trustees that keep everything decent and in order. We do background checks on those who teach and supervise minors. We have an unrelenting operational policy that mandates two people (at least one adult that is background checked) be in the room to supervise minors at all times. And, to be clear, most of this was in place before I came here 11 years ago.
We do this for the reason I came to this forum in the first place - accountability. It is clear you very little about how the majority of IFBs operate.
christundivided said:
Green Beret said:
Tell you what, you find me the Church of Jack Hyles or the Congregation of John R. Rice and I'll accept your application of this passage to the point here. We are talking about the term baptist as used in IFB, not the "camp" mentality that was rampant in a goodly portion of the IFB movement some decades ago. Even David Cloud recognizes that is finally over (well, mostly).
So, let me get this straight. You claim you're descendants of those who were called Baptist. Somehow, you then claim you are not following those that were called "Baptist"? How does that work exactly? I never said one thing about Hyles or Rice. Not one thing. You're missing the forest for the trees.
Well, you should have said something about Hyles because Matthew Ward found this and let me know about it:
http://hylesbaptist.com/
There are some in every part of the body of Christ. Ours may have a few more than others in this department but it is still very much the exception and not the rule. We are believers in Christ that strive to follow Him. We were called Christians by unbelievers and Baptist by our detractors. While we should not be considered stupid as a whole, there are certainly some in our ranks who are (see example in the link above).
christundivided said:
Oh but it is a title. It is a badge to wear. Peter under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost wrote,
1Pe 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
No, it is not just a title or badge that we wear. It is something that those call us who live our live following Christ. Are you a Christian because you call yourself one and wear the title? And all God’s people said, “No!” Let me repeat for emphasis since your favorite debate tactic, next to arguing from the specific to the general, is ad nauseam:
“We have always placed Christ above all else. In the fullness of His glory and by His grace we strive to live our lives in a way which will honor Him. We don't just blithely "call ourselves by our Master's name" but understand and believe that His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through the knowledge of Him who called us (read the rest of 2 Peter 1). To that end, we give Him the glory when someone calls us "of Christ" or a Christian. Christian is not a title or badge to wear, it is a life to live and, by His grace, we strive to do so.”
christundivided said:
Sorry. Peter didn't say.
1Pe 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Baptist, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
Are you saying Baptists, as a whole due to doctrine or practice, are not Christians?
christundivided said:
I read "baptist" on your signs. I hear about "baptist" in your services. You form "baptist fellowships". You filter everything through the "lens" of being baptist. Everything. Even when you preach "Christ".... you preach it the "baptist way".
To quote Dr. Davis, the EVP of my college, “You sir, are a keen observer of the obvious.”
Such build up. Such drama. Yes, and we have Baptist bathrooms and it is even rumored that we have a Baptist Cave where our dynamic duo fight apostasy (in their off hours) using their caped crusader costumes - “Quick Street Preacher, to the Baptist Mobile!” Give me a break.
Does that somehow make us non-believers?
We are Independent Fundamental Baptist. The Presbyterians, Methodist, Southern Baptist, Assembly of God, Church of God, etc. all have their versions of the same. Now why should that observation be considered in a debate asking the pointed question “Should Independent Fundamental Baptist be Considered Stupid?” That’s right. It shouldn’t. Now, with your twisted logic, you think it proves some perceived “lack of focus” when in reality, it does the exact opposite in the minds of those who can think clearly and understand simple church history.
In case you are counting, that’s another point against you.
christundivided said:
Also, Why did you ignore my "Sabbath" example? Did it hit home? Do you preach against the grass mowers and then go out on Sunday and fill your belly at the local restaurant?
No. I ignored it because it was.....wait for it.....stupid. Here, let me try to sound like you:
Why you didn’t ask me about my M247 Sgt. York DIVAD example? Did it hit home in proving your misuse of the term systematic? Man, you sound like a seventh grader.
But, since you insist, let me nail you to the floor, again. You really make it easy because you take your limited, specific experience and try to apply it to everyone in the population of an entire spectrum of believers.
First, in my 38 years as a member of IFB churches, I have never once heard a pastor or evangelist preach or teach (got to cover all the bases lest you waste time majoring on the minors) against grass mowers on the Sabbath, Bless Gawd! Maybe you went to a closet 7th Day Baptist Church that claimed to be IFB that wanted to protect the Sabbath (we had one of those down here once) or perhaps a Two Seed in the Spirit Predestinarian Baptist that was constantly trying to prove they were more separated from the world than Bob Jones University. Who knows, in North Carolina, it could happen. I can’t answer to your specific example because I never experienced it.
Second, every pastor I have ever had taught the exact same thing in regards to church attendance. Unless you were gainfully employed, every believer should gather themselves together to exhort one another as often as possible and even more so as they saw the Lord’s return was near, unlike those who do not (Heb. 10:25). Have I ever heard a pastor preach or teach in the defense of that principle? Absolutely. The vast majority of the time it was from a positive perspective. Sorry your experience wasn’t the same.
christundivided said:
1. Pride
2. Hypocrisy
3. Loss of Focus.
I believe the evidence is mounting. Make your own judgement.
Yes, the evidence is mounting that you have nothing substantial to support the positive position to the premise of this debate. As to making a judgement (sic) in regards to your three point demagoguery, I offer the following:
Pride - you have cornered the market on it. You are right and everyone else is wrong. The very spirit you condemn is spewing out of you like a fire hose. You have the same attitude you condemn in the IFBs you “left”. And, strangely enough, that spirit you thought you left behind didn’t leave you. You are so short sighted that you can’t see it. That’s a loss of focus. You suffer from such a severe form of spiritual myopia that you spend large amounts of your time on an Internet forum trying to argue your way to credibility with anonymous people. Hypocrisy - the one point that could have yielded a constructive debate, even though it would be very hard to connect to the scope of the original premise, you messed up by stereotyping.
No, brother, the vast majority of Independent Fundamental Baptists aren’t stupid. Soon we will take a poll on it and see what the forum says but I think in your heart you know I’m right. That’s why you tried to change the debate’s subject before we even started.
Just because we, as a whole, are not stupid doesn’t mean that there aren’t things we need to change or improve. There are things to which we need to pay close attention and make sure we are walking in the Lord’s power with the guidance of His Word and Spirit. The area where God has blessed me to serve, we have seen most of these things addressed over the last 24 years but there is always room for improvement and stretching.
Since I have only two replies left, and I think the antagonist point of view has been sufficiently defended, I will spend my next two posts explaining my personal perspective and summarizing my position instead of taking up so much time going tit for tat with you.