The influence of the 'new' IFB's.

[AlvinMartinezVoice]

The great evangelist/comedian Dr. Larry Brown has words for people leaving the IFB movement or anyone trying to change IFB standards:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpoKeDxCCj4

 

[bgwilkinson]

The great evangelist/comedian Dr. Larry Brown has words for people leaving the IFB movement or anyone trying to change IFB standards:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpoKeDxCCj4

Who cares what a comedian says?

 

[FSSL]

"GOD HELP US!! WE NEED SOME PREACHING AGAIN!!""

Okay... then...




























PREACH! Stop the stories and accolades of men. Promote God's glory. Use HIS word.

 

[BALAAM]

The great evangelist/comedian Dr. Larry Brown has words for people leaving the IFB movement or anyone trying to change IFB standards:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpoKeDxCCj4

I have to agree with this. If you want to be on the conference circuit for your retirement then you have to be somewhat of an entertainer. Its kind of like the folks who poke fun and criticize other churches who have a CCM singer come and they will condemn them from the highest hill because they have compromised just to get a crowd. The same folks will turn around and have bubble gum sunday, soda sunday, pizza sunday, and a ton of other things to get their crowd.

 

[Walt]

"GOD HELP US!! WE NEED SOME PREACHING AGAIN!!""

Okay... then...
PREACH! Stop the stories and accolades of men. Promote God's glory. Use HIS word.

So very true!

 

[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.

 

[AlvinMartinezVoice]

Larry Brown and Tony Hutson are famous in the IFB movement plus they are also comedians who take shots at people leaving IFB, other denominations, the Seeker Sensitive Mega Church model, as well their hatred of CCM music. Both Brown and Hutson still revere Jack Hyles and always praise him in their sermons/comedy routine.

 

[sword]

Larry Brown and Tony Hutson are famous in the IFB movement plus they are also comedians who take shots at people leaving IFB, other denominations, the Seeker Sensitive Mega Church model, as well their hatred of CCM music. Both Brown and Hutson still revere Jack Hyles and always praise him in their sermons/comedy routine.

I think this is the first post you have made that I totally agree with.

Many preachers effectively use humor in their sermons, some do not.

 

[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.

 

[Fresh Air]

To an intellectually and hermeneutically honest person, KJVO and no pants on women have all the proof of a flat earth position.

That rock can be hurled both directions...

 

[bgwilkinson]

To an intellectually and hermeneutically honest person, KJVO and no pants on women have all the proof of a flat earth position.

That rock can be hurled both directions...

That would be interesting, KJVOs stoning women in pants.
And the women in pants throwing the stones back at the KJVOs.
Wonder who would win.

 

[sword]

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. To an intellectually and hermeneutically honest person, KJVO and no pants on women have all the proof of a flat earth position.

Deuteronomy 22:5 says: ?A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman?s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.?

Side one, against pants will say:
1. Pants throughout modern history (1000 BC to 1940) were identified as a man?s garment in most societies.
        Deuteronomy 22:5
2. They will say pants on women are immodest because they show off a women?s curves and shape. Most will
        say an improper dress or skirt can be immodest as well. 1 Timothy 2:8-10
3. They will say men girded up their loins (in robes) for work (like pants), but women did not. Job 38:3 & Job
        40:7
4. They may reference Exodus 28:42 and say, showing the thigh is always immodest.

Side 2, Pro pants will say:
1. Men should dress in an appropriately masculine manner and women should dress in an appropriately
        feminine manner.
2. They will say pants are worn by both genders and do not pertain to just men.
3. They will say the prohibition in Deuteronomy 22 pertained to customs of heather worship in pagan temples
        and not ordinary dress.
4. Some will say Deuteronomy 22:5 pertains to appropriateness and modesty, and what is appropriate for
        women may change from society to society and time period to time period.

Issue 2 KJV only

1. Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that
    proceedeth out of the mouth of God. They take that to mean only one Bible in any given language can be
    Gods word.
2. 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
    They take this to mean 30 different Bibles with very different word and very different meanings can not all be the
    KJV.
3. Most believe their can be only one true Word of God. They believe it's the KJV in English.

I respect a persons right to take either side of these issues, but I disagree that those who take the opposite side of Tarheel are unintelligent, ignorant and buffoons. They interpret the verses differently and strongly believe they are interpreting them correctly just as you do.

 

[Ransom]

That rock can be hurled both directions...

If you try to argue the converse, that flat-eartherism is as credible as IFB pet doctrines like KJV-onlyism, I will actively encourage the entire world to laugh at you.

 

[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. To an intellectually and hermeneutically honest person, KJVO and no pants on women have all the proof of a flat earth position.

Deuteronomy 22:5 says: ?A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman?s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.?

Side one, against pants will say:
1. Pants throughout modern history (1000 BC to 1940) were identified as a man?s garment in most societies.
        Deuteronomy 22:5
2. They will say pants on women are immodest because they show off a women?s curves and shape. Most will
        say an improper dress or skirt can be immodest as well. 1 Timothy 2:8-10
3. They will say men girded up their loins (in robes) for work (like pants), but women did not. Job 38:3 & Job
        40:7
4. They may reference Exodus 28:42 and say, showing the thigh is always immodest.

Side 2, Pro pants will say:
1. Men should dress in an appropriately masculine manner and women should dress in an appropriately
        feminine manner.
2. They will say pants are worn by both genders and do not pertain to just men.
3. They will say the prohibition in Deuteronomy 22 pertained to customs of heather worship in pagan temples
        and not ordinary dress.
4. Some will say Deuteronomy 22:5 pertains to appropriateness and modesty, and what is appropriate for
        women may change from society to society and time period to time period.

Issue 2 KJV only

1. Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that
    proceedeth out of the mouth of God. They take that to mean only one Bible in any given language can be
    Gods word.
2. 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
    They take this to mean 30 different Bibles with very different word and very different meanings can not all be the
    KJV.
3. Most believe their can be only one true Word of God. They believe it's the KJV in English.

I respect a persons right to take either side of these issues, but I disagree that those who take the opposite side of Tarheel are unintelligent, ignorant and buffoons. They interpret the verses differently and strongly believe they are interpreting them correctly just as you do.

I do apologize for my wording...and my insult...I edited my post.


I do not apologize for my position, however.
The fact that ladies pants are somehow men's clothing is a position I simply do not see as a viable position.
The hermeneutics of their interpreting Deut. is inconsistent..which is obvious.
They eat shellfish and wear clothing made from blended materials...and they don't stone adulterers...

And your verses on the Word of God, I totally agree with. Your inference that it is the KJV 1611 is where I see flat earth arguments.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

To an intellectually and hermeneutically honest person, KJVO and no pants on women have all the proof of a flat earth position.

That rock can be hurled both directions...

Please hurl one or two...because I have yet to see a viable argument for either position.
There was a time in my life that I 'believed' KJVO...but when asked to prove my position, I sought to do so. After that honest research, I rejected KJVO as untenable.

I do however, believe good people can believe otherwise, but they must reject facts and reason to do so...IMO.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

As to KJVO and 'pants on women'.
IMO, these 2 often repeated and preached subjects, do not (when they are challenged) have viable hermeneutical or factual arguments.
They make for good preaching, but are not defendable.
That is one reason, IMO, that there are no 'IFB scholars' or serious, scholarly IFB commentaries.

It is also my opinion that in this 'prove what you believe' cultural environment, these younger IFB's have found my above assertion to be true.

 

[Am80]

T shirts, crew socks, high heeled shoes, lacey shirts, and work boots started out as men's clothing too. How many years does it take to make it no longer a cross dressing item? If one wants to be consistent about why women who wear pants are cross dressing, one must be willing to use that logic on all things in my opinion.

Sent from my SM-S903VL using Tapatalk

 

[bgwilkinson]

James Stewart at Hampton Court Conference

Look at that, mini skirt, tights or leggings and heels.
That sure is not a woman.
We know men liked women's clothes in 1600.
Are those garters on his legs?
Is that a fur coat like rappers wear?
Just precious.

 

[Fresh Air]

That rock can be hurled both directions...

If you try to argue the converse, that flat-eartherism is as credible as IFB pet doctrines like KJV-onlyism, I will actively encourage the entire world to laugh at you.

I'm just going to assume you are intentionally misunderstanding me for sarcasm purposes. IOW, that you are behaving as normal.

 

[Ransom]

James Stewart at Hampton Court Conference

Get a  shave, hippie!