The influence of the 'new' IFB's.

[Walt]

I'm not sure they seek to redefine or lead an IFB movement. I've never read they intended such. They have simply rejected the tenets of the other 2 groups and have gone their own way.

Ahhh.... now I understand. I thought, by your title, that was the case. 

Sorry.
They self identify as IFB, but aren't actively seeking to redefine the terms. I know what (little) I know from my acquaintance with one of the men who helps organize the idea days.

So they're IFB? Meaning they are independent from one another, so why are we concerned? It's their choice.

Independent doesn't mean that we don't care if they are right or wrong; it means that we acknowledge that we don't have the authority to make them act as we wish.

but the problem is this isnt a right or wrong issue, its preference

But what one group calls preference, another sees as mandated by Scripture.

I think that we should have liberty to wear colored shirts; nothing in Scripture talks about a white shirt being more holy than a colored shirt.  But some will preach against this... (I'm trying to start with a topic that most will agree is purely preference).

But then there is, say, the matter of what women should wear.  Certain groups insist, based upon passages in Deut that a woman wearing slacks is wearing men's apparel, and thus believe that it is wrong. Others just call this a preference, but it doesn't make it a preference.

Tithing is another good one; many people (especially here) believe that the New Testament teaches giving, not tithing - but lots of people believe that tithing is a command and that to not tithe is to be disobedient to God.

Music is another hot button; some firmly believe that certain styles are inherently worldly and bad and should not be used in by Christians.  Others just call it a preference.

A poor or non existent hermeneutic doesn't make a preference a doctrine.
As I have studied both positions, KJVO and no pants on women have all the proof of a flat earth position.

So you say -- those who take those positions claim to have a biblical basis for them, and I completely support their right to try to tell others so.  Clearly, with your studying, they will never persuade you.

If a man believes that it is sinful for a woman to wear trousers, I expect him to preach that.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I'm not sure they seek to redefine or lead an IFB movement. I've never read they intended such. They have simply rejected the tenets of the other 2 groups and have gone their own way.

Ahhh.... now I understand. I thought, by your title, that was the case. 

Sorry.
They self identify as IFB, but aren't actively seeking to redefine the terms. I know what (little) I know from my acquaintance with one of the men who helps organize the idea days.

So they're IFB? Meaning they are independent from one another, so why are we concerned? It's their choice.

Independent doesn't mean that we don't care if they are right or wrong; it means that we acknowledge that we don't have the authority to make them act as we wish.

but the problem is this isnt a right or wrong issue, its preference

But what one group calls preference, another sees as mandated by Scripture.

I think that we should have liberty to wear colored shirts; nothing in Scripture talks about a white shirt being more holy than a colored shirt.  But some will preach against this... (I'm trying to start with a topic that most will agree is purely preference).

But then there is, say, the matter of what women should wear.  Certain groups insist, based upon passages in Deut that a woman wearing slacks is wearing men's apparel, and thus believe that it is wrong. Others just call this a preference, but it doesn't make it a preference.

Tithing is another good one; many people (especially here) believe that the New Testament teaches giving, not tithing - but lots of people believe that tithing is a command and that to not tithe is to be disobedient to God.

Music is another hot button; some firmly believe that certain styles are inherently worldly and bad and should not be used in by Christians.  Others just call it a preference.

A poor or non existent hermeneutic doesn't make a preference a doctrine.
As I have studied both positions, KJVO and no pants on women have all the proof of a flat earth position.

So you say -- those who take those positions claim to have a biblical basis for them, and I completely support their right to try to tell others so.  Clearly, with your studying, they will never persuade you.

If a man believes that it is sinful for a woman to wear trousers, I expect him to preach that.

Cults and isms* also claim a biblical basis for their belief system, but...

*This is not an accusation that 'they' are a cult.

 

[TheRealJonStewart]

I'm not sure they seek to redefine or lead an IFB movement. I've never read they intended such. They have simply rejected the tenets of the other 2 groups and have gone their own way.

Ahhh.... now I understand. I thought, by your title, that was the case. 

Sorry.
They self identify as IFB, but aren't actively seeking to redefine the terms. I know what (little) I know from my acquaintance with one of the men who helps organize the idea days.

So they're IFB? Meaning they are independent from one another, so why are we concerned? It's their choice.

Independent doesn't mean that we don't care if they are right or wrong; it means that we acknowledge that we don't have the authority to make them act as we wish.

but the problem is this isnt a right or wrong issue, its preference

But what one group calls preference, another sees as mandated by Scripture.

I think that we should have liberty to wear colored shirts; nothing in Scripture talks about a white shirt being more holy than a colored shirt.  But some will preach against this... (I'm trying to start with a topic that most will agree is purely preference).

But then there is, say, the matter of what women should wear.  Certain groups insist, based upon passages in Deut that a woman wearing slacks is wearing men's apparel, and thus believe that it is wrong. Others just call this a preference, but it doesn't make it a preference.

Tithing is another good one; many people (especially here) believe that the New Testament teaches giving, not tithing - but lots of people believe that tithing is a command and that to not tithe is to be disobedient to God.

Music is another hot button; some firmly believe that certain styles are inherently worldly and bad and should not be used in by Christians.  Others just call it a preference.

A poor or non existent hermeneutic doesn't make a preference a doctrine.
As I have studied both positions, KJVO and no pants on women have all the proof of a flat earth position.

So you say -- those who take those positions claim to have a biblical basis for them, and I completely support their right to try to tell others so.  Clearly, with your studying, they will never persuade you.

If a man believes that it is sinful for a woman to wear trousers, I expect him to preach that.

Are we seriously going to be content with calling some "preferences" a sin/non-sin issue? That's ridiculous. If the Amish think we're all sinning because we use technology from their interpretation, does that make it biblical?

 

[FSSL]

Gird up your loins, men! The FFF has a discussion on pants again!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bgwilkinson]

Gird up your loins, men! The FFF has a discussion on pants again!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am waiting anxiously to see what the KJVOs who are normally the condemners of cross dressers will say about the way their patron saint James Stewart I of England had a practice of wearing women's clothing.

Here are a few world famous images of Mr. Stewart. These obviously had the Kings blessing much like the 1611 version of the Bible.

How precious, King James looks just like his Catholic momma. Two girls.

I'm speechless on this one. Old hippy.

 

[brianb]

Gird up your loins, men! The FFF has a discussion on pants again!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Women didn't wear that style of outfit. Too much leg for one thing.
I am waiting anxiously to see what the KJVOs who are normally the condemners of cross dressers will say about the way their patron saint James Stewart I of England had a practice of wearing women's clothing.

Here are a few world famous images of Mr. Stewart. These obviously had the Kings blessing much like the 1611 version of the Bible.

How precious, King James looks just like his Catholic momma. Two girls.

I'm speechless on this one. Old hippy.

 

[AlvinMartinezVoice]

People like CraigGroeschel, Steven Furtick, Perry Noble, Rick Warren, Mark Driscol, Brian Houston, Carl Lentz, Ed Young Jr, Richie Wilkerson Jr, are multi millionaires with satellite campuses across the country. Groeschel seems to be the only sane one in that group as though he's entertainment driven he does not preach the prosperity gospel though he does endorse the above mentioned names as well as TBN. More and more people are not just leaving the IFBs but other mainline denominations, even the Southern Baptist Convention is not fond of places like Groeschel's "churches". There are IFB college alums well as Hyles-Anderson alums who left the IFB movement to start a seeker sensitive church or go "mainstream" and work in the seeker sensitive/entertainment mega-church model.

 

[bgwilkinson]

We found out in the sermon this morning that whole families are leaving our church for other churches in the area due to personal preference disagreements with the pastor. We are talking about things on which the Bible is silent. The other churches are coming out and saying where do you find that in the Bible.

More and more people who are studying the Bible now are demanding real scriptural answers, not just the old IFB saw do as I say because I said so meme. They are now noticing that scriptures are being stretched to the point of breaking. If the Bible does not clearly teach it don't say it does as that just stimulates people to study the scripture to see what they say as opposed to what the pastor says they say.

Individual soul liberty is foundational in a Baptist church. The pastor is not the final authority the Bible is and I'm not talking about just the King James Version.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Hey Alvin, how do you have the time to be so informed on all these guys? I have never heard of any of them.

Is Young Jr. the son of the pastor of Fellowship church?

 

[AlvinMartinezVoice]

Hey Alvin, how do you have the time to be so informed on all these guys? I have never heard of any of them.

Is Young Jr. the son of the pastor of Fellowship church?

Yes and he's a money hungry TBN preacher and also has seminars for preachers on how to start a megachurch. He's been heavily criticized by famous IFB evangelist Tony Hutson.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Hey Alvin, how do you have the time to be so informed on all these guys? I have never heard of any of them.

Is Young Jr. the son of the pastor of Fellowship church?

Yes and he's a money hungry TBN preacher and also has seminars for preachers on how to start a megachurch. He's been heavily criticized by famous IFB evangelist Tony Hutson.

Tony Hutson, never heard of him.

 

[BALAAM]

Hey Alvin, how do you have the time to be so informed on all these guys? I have never heard of any of them.

Is Young Jr. the son of the pastor of Fellowship church?

Yes and he's a money hungry TBN preacher and also has seminars for preachers on how to start a megachurch. He's been heavily criticized by famous IFB evangelist Tony Hutson.

You do realize it is difficult to take you seriously about anything, don't you?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Hey Alvin, how do you have the time to be so informed on all these guys? I have never heard of any of them.

Is Young Jr. the son of the pastor of Fellowship church?

Yes and he's a money hungry TBN preacher and also has seminars for preachers on how to start a megachurch. He's been heavily criticized by famous IFB evangelist Tony Hutson.

You do realize it is difficult to take you seriously about anything, don't you?

I have always assumed Big Al didn't expect to be taken seriously.
His extreme 'buffoonery' has to be purposeful.

 

[TheRealJonStewart]

Hey Alvin, how do you have the time to be so informed on all these guys? I have never heard of any of them.

Is Young Jr. the son of the pastor of Fellowship church?

Yes and he's a money hungry TBN preacher and also has seminars for preachers on how to start a megachurch. He's been heavily criticized by famous IFB evangelist Tony Hutson.

Tony Hutson, never heard of him.

Who is Tony Hutson?

 

[bgwilkinson]

Hey Alvin, how do you have the time to be so informed on all these guys? I have never heard of any of them.

Is Young Jr. the son of the pastor of Fellowship church?

Yes and he's a money hungry TBN preacher and also has seminars for preachers on how to start a megachurch. He's been heavily criticized by famous IFB evangelist Tony Hutson.

Tony Hutson, never heard of him.

Who is Tony Hutson?

Now how famous can he be if two of us have never heard of him?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Hey Alvin, how do you have the time to be so informed on all these guys? I have never heard of any of them.

Is Young Jr. the son of the pastor of Fellowship church?

Yes and he's a money hungry TBN preacher and also has seminars for preachers on how to start a megachurch. He's been heavily criticized by famous IFB evangelist Tony Hutson.

Tony Hutson, never heard of him.

Who is Tony Hutson?

Now how famous can he be if two of us have never heard of him?

In my early years of ministry I was surprised to learn that IFB-dom was a very small pond...even in the evangelical world. In this small pond, larger fish are perceived to be whales.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Hey Alvin, how do you have the time to be so informed on all these guys? I have never heard of any of them.

Is Young Jr. the son of the pastor of Fellowship church?

Yes and he's a money hungry TBN preacher and also has seminars for preachers on how to start a megachurch. He's been heavily criticized by famous IFB evangelist Tony Hutson.

Tony Hutson, never heard of him.

Who is Tony Hutson?

Now how famous can he be if two of us have never heard of him?

In my early years of ministry I was surprised to learn that IFB-dom was a very small pond...even in the evangelical world. In this small pond, larger fish are perceived to be whales.

Yes IFB-dom is not only a very small pond but it is only an inche deep making very small midgets appear to be giants to those in the pond.

 

[AlvinMartinezVoice]

Something to Ponder:

John MacArthur, John Piper, David Platt, Todd Friel (Wretched Radio) are extremely critical of seeker sensitive megachuches and megachurch pastors Craig Groeschel/Keith Craft/Heath Mooneyham/Mark Driscol/Rick Warren/Carl Lentz/Brian Houston/Perry Noble/Steven Furtick and the founder of the seeker sensitive megachurh movement Robert Schuller (whom Jack Hyles held a strong hatred for).

Famous IFB pastors evangelists Jack Hyles/Jack Schaap/Larry Brown/Tony Hutson/Jack Trieber are extremely critical of the men mentioned above PLUS they are highly critical of MacArthur/Piper/Friel etc.

So who's right at the end of the day?

 

[TheRealJonStewart]

Something to Ponder:

John MacArthur, John Piper, David Platt, Todd Friel (Wretched Radio) are extremely critical of seeker sensitive megachuches and megachurch pastors Craig Groeschel/Keith Craft/Heath Mooneyham/Mark Driscol/Rick Warren/Carl Lentz/Brian Houston/Perry Noble/Steven Furtick and the founder of the seeker sensitive megachurh movement Robert Schuller (whom Jack Hyles held a strong hatred for).

Famous IFB pastors evangelists Jack Hyles/Jack Schaap/Larry Brown/Tony Hutson/Jack Trieber are extremely critical of the men mentioned above PLUS they are highly critical of MacArthur/Piper/Friel etc.

So who's right at the end of the day?

Rick Warren was honored at the Southern Baptist Convention this past year by Paige Patterson and David Platt, who is the ultra-conservative patriarch of the Southern Baptist Conservative Resurgence in the 70s and 80s with Adrian Rogers. Patterson himself is extremely critical of John MacArthur and John Piper.

I don't think you know how the game of politics works in the Southern Baptist Convention. MacArthur and Piper are not revered at all by the Southern Baptist Convention because of their Calvinism views, although they are accepted by Southern Seminary with Mohler.

Jack Schaap had Geronimo of the seeker-sensitive church in Chicago in his pastor's conference, if you recall. Geronimo was convicted of sex with minor as well. I don't know who this Tony Hutson guy is and Jack Trieber is slowly becoming more liberal because of his son. (he is allowing screens at his church finally!)

Hyles - let's not get into him, he was as liberal as conservative as he was. He picked and chose who he wanted to work with or who he liked. Bob Jones Sr. was a Methodist.

 

[subllibrm]

I'm not sure they seek to redefine or lead an IFB movement. I've never read they intended such. They have simply rejected the tenets of the other 2 groups and have gone their own way.

Ahhh.... now I understand. I thought, by your title, that was the case. 

Sorry.
They self identify as IFB, but aren't actively seeking to redefine the terms. I know what (little) I know from my acquaintance with one of the men who helps organize the idea days.

So they're IFB? Meaning they are independent from one another, so why are we concerned? It's their choice.

Independent doesn't mean that we don't care if they are right or wrong; it means that we acknowledge that we don't have the authority to make them act as we wish.

So instead they lash out at each other, decrying whatever bug-a-boo of disagreement they have, and proclaim the other side to have descended into the "pit of hell" to come up with the horrible subject of disagreement. And they wonder why there is so little respect for their methodology.