The FFF, Fundamentalism and Reality.

Tarheel Baptist

Tarheel Baptist

Well-known member
Doctor
Elect
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
8,845
Reaction score
838
Points
113
I presume many of you are in the FFF Facebook group. While it?s mostly void of posts, I noted this week a familiar refrain repeated there. The poster stated that when he came to the FFF he was an old path?s IFB but what he learned here caused him to rethink his belief system and now he is a mainstream fundamentalist in his belief and practice, attending an SBC church, if I recall correctly. There are so many, dozens...hundreds (?)...who share that story.

My theory is that the nature of old line IFB fundamentalism existed and thrived in an echo chamber. They warned against reading or listening to the heretics outside the camp...(MacArthur and Swindoll were 2 such ?heretics?). The age of the internet did more to enlighten that group than anything else. Their leaders could no longer control the flow of information to the masses....and common sense and a Biblical hermeneutic destroyed many of their extra biblical fundamentals of the faith.

The no pants on women, exalt the man of god, KJVO, easy believe-ism...?pray this prayer if you don?t want to go to hell? soul winning and some other beliefs simply do not and cannot stand up under scrutiny. Twisted illustrates some of that here today...illustrating the vacuousness of some of those positions.

The variations of ?New? IFB?s are some of the responses to this ongoing dilemma.
Some, like Scowling Bob Gray, keep on keeping on with the old paths...even though it?s trod today by old men on walkers and canes.
Others, like Smiling Tom Brennan, held to the beliefs with a better disposition.
Stevie Anderson?s group on the right and Josh Teis? group on the left bookend the movement.

I?d like to have a civil discussion, if you?re interested. We have KJV1611, who I greatly respect and Twisted who I love to tweak, Prophet and a few other IFB?s still here. My interest lies in a group of Pastors I meet with regularly that includes a number of younger IFB men who struggle with the issue.
 
There's an FFF Facebook group?

News to me.
 
Twisted said:
There's an FFF Facebook group?

News to me.
Click to expand...

I guess Don Boys didn't blog about it...
https://www.facebook.com/groups/232193837136869/
 
I left that group along time ago.
 
Sherryh said:
I left that group along time ago.
Click to expand...

Most of them left this group a long time ago.
Wish they?d come back.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
I guess Don Boys didn't blog about it... 
Click to expand...

Why would he?  It's a dead group.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
I presume many of you are in the FFF Facebook group. While it?s mostly void of posts, I noted this week a familiar refrain repeated there. The poster stated that when he came to the FFF he was an old path?s IFB but what he learned here caused him to rethink his belief system and now he is a mainstream fundamentalist in his belief and practice, attending an SBC church, if I recall correctly. There are so many, dozens...hundreds (?)...who share that story.

My theory is that the nature of old line IFB fundamentalism existed and thrived in an echo chamber. They warned against reading or listening to the heretics outside the camp...(MacArthur and Swindoll were 2 such ?heretics?). The age of the internet did more to enlighten that group than anything else. Their leaders could no longer control the flow of information to the masses....and common sense and a Biblical hermeneutic destroyed many of their extra biblical fundamentals of the faith.

The no pants on women, exalt the man of god, KJVO, easy believe-ism...?pray this prayer if you don?t want to go to hell? soul winning and some other beliefs simply do not and cannot stand up under scrutiny. Twisted illustrates some of that here today...illustrating the vacuousness of some of those positions.

The variations of ?New? IFB?s are some of the responses to this ongoing dilemma.
Some, like Scowling Bob Gray, keep on keeping on with the old paths...even though it?s trod today by old men on walkers and canes.
Others, like Smiling Tom Brennan, held to the beliefs with a better disposition.
Stevie Anderson?s group on the right and Josh Teis? group on the left bookend the movement.

I?d like to have a civil discussion, if you?re interested. We have KJV1611, who I greatly respect and Twisted who I love to tweak, Prophet and a few other IFB?s still here. My interest lies in a group of Pastors I meet with regularly that includes a number of younger IFB men who struggle with the issue.
Click to expand...

I do not think Spamderson counts as IFB. I don't consider him Biblical and do consider him a cult. He is so far off the mark in his teaching that he does not qualify.

Those who wish to continue tho preach man made, pharisaical drivel will find their numbers dwindle as eyes are opened and fewer outsiders buy into their philosophy.

I've seen very few who could actually stay in the IFB circles they are used to if they don't pay lip service to man. Others are truly independent and worry little about others opinions.

 
Excelsior said:
Those who wish to continue tho preach man made, pharisaical drivel will find their numbers dwindle as eyes are opened and fewer outsiders buy into their philosophy.
Click to expand...

I know this is slightly off-topic, but have you noticed the growth of Mormonism and Islam in this country?

How can anyone say that those who "preach man-made, pharisaical drivel" won't have growth?

There will ALWAYS be those drawn to that type of "ministry".
 
I fought long and hard to try to keep the FFF going.  Uphill battle.  Was SO PLEASED to read on the FFF old timers Facebook page where we look nostalgically at the "good ol' days" of the FFF going strong.

So I'm here. Opinionated as ever, pontificating as always right, and happy to jump in on a few threads.  And already seeing "handles" I remember.
 
I'm also here, since FSSL stopped by on FB and reminded us this one was still going, I thought I should stop in.

So, hi! Glad to see y'all. Whether I stay will depend on what's going on here these days, if there's anybody or anything to hold my interest. TB and Dr. B are here at least, and that's a good sign.
 
I was a actually an IFB Fanatic (drank all the Kool-Aid) as a teenager.  I was a "Young Fundamentalist" and a "preacher boy", even though I didn't surrender to preach until after graduation.  I was proud, condemning, pious, and somewhat of a self righteous jerk.

All that changed after my first semester at Hyles-Anderson College.  I didn't have any moments of epiphany nor was there a great event that shook my faith.  I just began to mature and think things through.  I first began to reject "easy believism" and my activity report and bus route numbers were never praisworthy.  I then began to deny "pastoral authority."  You should read my 2 page single spaced report on the subject for Bible Doctrines with Bob Marshall.  Other "pet standards" began to slowly fall away and my general philosophy on Christianity morphed into "doing unto others" as opposed to a "fair showing in the flesh."

I graduated HAC in 2002 and I still love the college and the IFB movement...even though I don't fully belong in it.  I appreciate most of it's leader's sincerity and true heart for God and their people, even if I disagree with them on their approaches, methods, and doctrines.  I sitll hold a few of the "old path's" beliefs, but they are my own and are not based on anyone else's demands. 
 
Here in Illinois the IFB way of life appears to be in a state of decline.  More than 30 years ago I did a count of IFB churches in Illinois, and at that time it was my impression that there were maybe 450 to 475 IFB churches in Illinois.  In the past month I have researched and updated my list and I am now counting approximately 340 identifiable IFB churches in Illinois. 
Of course, if the average membership and/or attendance per church is up considerably, then the total of IFB adherents in Illinois may be more than it was 30 years ago.  But that is highly unlikely.  My impression is that many IFB congregations in Illinois are declining, but I really don't know - attendance figures are unavailable.
I suspect that there are fewer and fewer people willing to faithfully follow the "old paths" IFB way of life - to drive long distances 4 times a week (including visitation night) to the "perfect" church, passing by other Baptist churches that do not measure up - to faithfully obey a preacher who controls the schooling, dating and mating, amusements, Bible versions, dress styles and hair styles of their parishioners. 

We are told that more than half of all adult Americans are single, but when you visit a typical IFB church, almost all the adults are married couples - if there are singles, they are mostly previously married persons who are now widowed or divorced.  Young singles in a small church have very little chance of finding a mate there, or even to be accepted as an equal in a movement that caters fairly successfully to already-married couples, while treating young singles as children who are incompetent to run their own lives, or even to dress themselves.  When the supply of already-married couples dries up, as the older couples die or move South, then the IFB movement will dry up - unless the movement is willing to change.
 
illinoisguy said:
Here in Illinois the IFB way of life appears to be in a state of decline.  More than 30 years ago I did a count of IFB churches in Illinois, and at that time it was my impression that there were maybe 450 to 475 IFB churches in Illinois.  In the past month I have researched and updated my list and I am now counting approximately 340 identifiable IFB churches in Illinois. 
Of course, if the average membership and/or attendance per church is up considerably, then the total of IFB adherents in Illinois may be more than it was 30 years ago.  But that is highly unlikely.  My impression is that many IFB congregations in Illinois are declining, but I really don't know - attendance figures are unavailable.
I suspect that there are fewer and fewer people willing to faithfully follow the "old paths" IFB way of life - to drive long distances 4 times a week (including visitation night) to the "perfect" church, passing by other Baptist churches that do not measure up - to faithfully obey a preacher who controls the schooling, dating and mating, amusements, Bible versions, dress styles and hair styles of their parishioners. 

We are told that more than half of all adult Americans are single, but when you visit a typical IFB church, almost all the adults are married couples - if there are singles, they are mostly previously married persons who are now widowed or divorced.  Young singles in a small church have very little chance of finding a mate there, or even to be accepted as an equal in a movement that caters fairly successfully to already-married couples, while treating young singles as children who are incompetent to run their own lives, or even to dress themselves.  When the supply of already-married couples dries up, as the older couples die or move South, then the IFB movement will dry up - unless the movement is willing to change.
Click to expand...


Reaching Singles has been a struggle for much of the established evangelical church as well...at least during the past decade or so. Some of the contemporary church plants have had huge success in reaching them though, although they have some trouble reaching the older crowd, and because of that, they sometimes struggle financially.

My point in starting this thread was to say that the old line, old paths so called fundamentals don?t hold up under Biblical or logical scrutiny. They can only thrive in an echo chamber and the internet has broken down the echo chamber walls.

There are some younger IFBs who have changed and are thriving.
They, of course, are branded as liberal by the echo chamber, traditionalists.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
They, of course, are branded as liberal by the echo chamber, traditionalists.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about me...me.....me.......me
 
Yes, I totally agree, some of the Old Paths fundamentals do not hold up under Biblical scrutiny.  Old Paths heavily emphasizes dress reform, but I don't remember seeing any dress codes in the Bible except for Old Testament priests.  Old Paths means we have to condemn 99% of all Millennial women and younger girls who do not measure up to the dress codes, which also means that if they are victims of lust, molestation or rape, it is blamed on the women because they were wearing slacks or whatever, and they are asked, "How were you dressed?"  Millennial women, and people in general, will not accept such standards and condemnation, which are contrary to Matthew 5:28-29 where Christ put all the blame on the men if they have lust problems.  Women of child-bearing age will tend to stay away from Old Paths churches.  Without women of child-bearing age, any religious movement will not experience natural growth through births within the movement, and that movement will tend to die out.  Growth, if any, will have to come through conversions (door-to-door soulwinning) or maybe through immigration, adoptions or test-tube babies.  I'd love to see Bob Gray and his minions address this issue.
 
Twisted said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
They, of course, are branded as liberal by the echo chamber, traditionalists.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about me...me.....me.......me
Click to expand...

I was thinking of some of those with an online presence and a dozens of followers who self identify as IFB leaders.
But, if you want to be included, i'll comply.  :)
 
I will just put in my 2 cents. All of those things you are saying are bad (separation and such) are not bad things. I believe that may be the problem. We exalt things and make them look terrible and they are not. Skirts on women and the King James are two examples.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
busman7797 said:
I will just put in my 2 cents. All of those things you are saying are bad (separation and such) are not bad things. I believe that may be the problem. We exalt things and make them look terrible and they are not. Skirts on women and the King James are two examples.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Welcome to the FFF!
Happy to have you participate.

Bad things is a relative term.
If you want to hold those positions as simply your personal preferences, not a problem for me...at all!
But, to claim that those who don't hold your positions are wrong or unbiblical is another matter.

My point is that the KJVO position and the no pants on women argument(s) are invalid...in that neither can stand up to debate or an exchange of 'evidence'.
 
That was the root of the problem over "standards".  God's Word has standards of dress, conduct, message, character that are non-negotiable.

I grew up Jewish and LIVED by "man-made" standards and rules.  When converted I went to an IFB (historic, not looney-tune Hylesish type) that also had thoughts and positions of the pastor that because just as sacred (or more so) than the ones in the Word. 

They didn't like "mixed swimming".  I loved to swim with other teen girls, dunk up and have fun.  Found out this was SIN by their standeeerds.  Then moved to Texas and church said NOT to "mixed swimming".  Oh, guys and gals together were no problem, but Blacks and whites?  Damnable.

And so it is still, 70 years later, still a battle of those with personal ideas/preferences trying to foist their myopic view on others and push people to obey what they call "biblical" standards.  This is not just ERROR; this is EVIL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top