The influence of the 'new' IFB's.

[Tarheel Baptist]

The response of some/most in the IFB 'old guard' are to declare these young men to be 'Liberals' and insist that the Old Path's be maintained.
Evidently that means 'don't bring drums or screens into the church', keep using door to door soulwinning (souls won in other methods count less, evidently), keep running busses, keep wearing black suits, white shirts with red ties, keep culottes on your girls and ladies and by all means remain KJVO!

But this post contains things I'm concerned about.  For example, if a church does not wish to use screens, you seem to label them as old-school.  There are good arguments to use screens, and there are good arguments against it.  You seem to fall straight into the "old-school" IFB of elevating preference to doctrine by attacking those who would be against screens.

Buses are a good way to bring people to church who could not otherwise come.  Certainly (as in many things) buses can be misused (such as when the people riding the buses are treated as numbers-only, 2nd class citizens).

I don't  fault a church that still does door-to-door witnessing, but I think, given our modern age, it's hard to get people to talk at the door. There must be a  better way.

Not sure about the attack about wearing suits. I think it is good to dress up  for church; I also think it is wrong to judge people as un-spiritual who are not dressed "like us".

I don't really see a the point of the culotte comment.

And, finally, there is a group of people who hold to the KJV who seem to believe that it was directly inspired by God (Bob Gray, formerly of Texas, Gail Riplinger, and others of that stripe). This group despises commentaries, and Greek lexicons, and consider it unwise to ever refer to Greek or Hebrew words in the the Bible. I don't agree with this group.  However, there is another group that believes that the KJV is a superior translation, translated by superior men, using superior methods, and superior text.  Both of these groups could be called KJV only (KJVO), but they are quite different.  I agree with the second group, personally.

I prefaced my comments with 'evidently' because the things I mentioned and you referenced in your post were exactly what I have heard more than a few times at the National Sword of the Lord Conference held annually in Walkertown, NC. The church there is less than an hour from me and I usually attend one day each year. The afternoon sessions are for 'teaching' and over and over i hear the same topics under the guise of maintaining the Old Paths.

The 'new' IFB's are usually referenced more than a few times...labeling them as compromisers who will do anything to 'get a crowd'. And the 'do anything' they mention are dress of men for church, pants on their women, using translations other than KJV, drums and 'rock music' in their services and less often mentioned is the use of screens.
I assume that a few who follow the old paths have snuck a screen into their auditoriums and 'get a pass'.

 

[logos1560]

And, finally, there is a group of people who hold to the KJV who seem to believe that it was directly inspired by God (Bob Gray, formerly of Texas, Gail Riplinger, and others of that stripe). This group despises commentaries, and Greek lexicons, and consider it unwise to ever refer to Greek or Hebrew words in the the Bible. I don't agree with this group.  However, there is another group that believes that the KJV is a superior translation, translated by superior men, using superior methods, and superior text.  Both of these groups could be called KJV only (KJVO), but they are quite different.  I agree with the second group, personally.

It has not been soundly demonstrated that the KJV has a superior translation of every verse of original-language Scripture, that its translators were "superior men," that they used "superior methods", and followed any "superior text."    Merely assuming and thinking what you wish would not be sound nor scriptural.  The KJV translators did not actually follow and translate 100% faithfully and accurately any one original- language Old Testament text edition and any one Greek New Testament text edition.  The KJV translators actually used and consulted multiple, textually-varying sources, not following any one 100%.

  Sometimes one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision has a clearer, better, or more accurate [superior] translation of a verse than the KJV has.  Sometimes the makers of the KJV departed from the pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops') and instead borrowed renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.  Was the 1582 Rheims actually superior to the 1560 Geneva Bible?

 

[Walt]

David Sorenson commented on his blog, lol. David Cloud and David Sorenson, those two guys are crazy.

Who is David Sorenson? (I've heard of David Cloud)

 

[prophet]

And, finally, there is a group of people who hold to the KJV who seem to believe that it was directly inspired by God (Bob Gray, formerly of Texas, Gail Riplinger, and others of that stripe). This group despises commentaries, and Greek lexicons, and consider it unwise to ever refer to Greek or Hebrew words in the the Bible. I don't agree with this group.  However, there is another group that believes that the KJV is a superior translation, translated by superior men, using superior methods, and superior text.  Both of these groups could be called KJV only (KJVO), but they are quite different.  I agree with the second group, personally.

It has not been soundly demonstrated that the KJV has a superior translation of every verse of original-language Scripture, that its translators were "superior men," that they used "superior methods", and followed any "superior text."    Merely assuming and thinking what you wish would not be sound nor scriptural.  The KJV translators did not actually follow and translate 100% faithfully and accurately any one original- language Old Testament text edition and any one Greek New Testament text edition.  The KJV translators actually used and consulted multiple, textually-varying sources, not following any one 100%.

  Sometimes one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision has a clearer, better, or more accurate [superior] translation of a verse than the KJV has.  Sometimes the makers of the KJV departed from the pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops') and instead borrowed renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.  Was the 1582 Rheims actually superior to the 1560 Geneva Bible?

Triggered!!!

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[TheRealJonStewart]

David Sorenson commented on his blog, lol. David Cloud and David Sorenson, those two guys are crazy.

Who is David Sorenson? (I've heard of David Cloud)

Someone who thinks he's a somebody but in reality his work is nothing more than a nothingburger of plagiarism.

 

[HammondCheese]

James York sounds like he would have been the perfect apprentice for Jim Vineyard.

Jedi or Sith?  [emoji41]

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk