The 'New' IFB's and secondary separation.

[Tarheel Baptist]

http://joshteis.com/2017/12/11/six-degrees-of-separation/

 

[bgwilkinson]

From the article.

"Yes.  The elevation of preferences to theological status did not help.  To codify a style of music, building decoration, pulpit attire, and service schedule as Biblical helped to corrupt our churches.  But it was the teaching that a man must separate himself from anyone who doesn?t completely and utterly agree with him that truly sowed the seeds of destruction into our movement.  And then we added a Bible verse to make it true?

Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they are agreed?"

He has other reasons but this more than any explains why the IFB has gone from a vibrant lake teaming with life to a tiny putrid puddle filled with organisms bunching up in dying cancerous masses.

 

[Walt]

http://joshteis.com/2017/12/11/six-degrees-of-separation/

There are some things in that post I really, really, really liked: In particular,

We align ourselves closely to dead men with whom we would have much to disagree but we distance ourselves greatly from living men with whom we disagree slightly in comparison.

was SO true.

However, I think he missed the point regarding David Ring - in my opinion, he had a lapse of judgment when he agreed to speak for Schuller and using evangelism as his excuse.  Would he accept an invitation from Penthouse or Playboy to preach there? How about speaking at a bar?  When you accept an invitation like this, you are tacitly endorsing them, and that was his mistake.

If he would admit it as an error, I wouldn't hold it against him and would allow him to speak.  But it sounds to me from the article as if he would do it again.  In that case, I wouldn't have him speak.

The Internet age is both a blessing and a curse.  It's a blessing that fornicating pastors can't just move out of state and start their wickedness anew in another place.  It's a curse in that it is easy to ruin a man's reputation with a web log.

But thanks for posting the article - it was an interesting read!

 

[FSSL]

And then we added a Bible verse to make it true?

Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they are agreed?"

Which completely missed the idea of the verse!

 

[bgwilkinson]

And then we added a Bible verse to make it true?

Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they are agreed?"

Which completely missed the idea of the verse!

Yes but, so typical of preachers who make up a sermon that pleases them and then flip through their bibles anxiously praying for a verse they can corkscrew into the scripture reading slot so their congregation will think they heard a biblical sermon.

 

[Walt]

And then we added a Bible verse to make it true?

Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they are agreed?"

Which completely missed the idea of the verse!

Yes, when I saw the verse quoted, and thought about how it has been used, I realized that it could not mean what it normally is said to mean... I can walk with someone else, even if we don't agree on a whole raft of issues.

 

[Saved by Grace]

so does a preacher have to agree with everything a pastor preached to preach in his church ?

just curious.

 

[Agent P]

http://joshteis.com/2017/12/11/six-degrees-of-separation/

Jack van Impe wrote on this about 40 years ago.  It hasn't changed much since, except Calvinists in the SBC are now getting into the act.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

http://joshteis.com/2017/12/11/six-degrees-of-separation/

Jack van Impe wrote on this about 40 years ago.  It hasn't changed much since, except Calvinists in the SBC are now getting into the act.

It appears to me that there is a new generation of IFB?s who are actually going to change this inconsistent practice. Or they are giving it their best shot.

 

[Walt]

so does a preacher have to agree with everything a pastor preached to preach in his church ?

just curious.

An interesting question -- I've seldom seen two people agree on "everything".  The pastor probably needs to know the guy well enough to feel confident that they won't abuse their position.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

so does a preacher have to agree with everything a pastor preached to preach in his church ?

just curious.

An interesting question -- I've seldom seen two people agree on "everything".  The pastor probably needs to know the guy well enough to feel confident that they won't abuse their position.

I think that's pretty key. I think letting someone preach/fill pulpit is a case of mutual respect. I respect them enough to allow them, they respect me enough to not contradict me.

There are a ton of ways it could happen.

The concern for me would not be if it happened inadvertently. It would be if it happened on purpose, as though he were trying to correct me from the pulpit. That's disrespectful.

Yet there would have to be a pretty good amount of sameness to even let someone in to begin with.

 

[cpizzle]

I remember Joe Boyd saying the KJV had mistakes in it during Church Ed at HAC.  This was in 2000.

I don't think he was trying to be controversial...I just don't think he was ever made aware of the whole KJV only debate.

Watching Bro. John Francis sitting on the platform wondering what to do was priceless

It really bothered several people I knew, but I just smiled.  If this was the worst thing Joe Boyd ever said, then we were doing ok.

 

[Twisted]

I remember Joe Boyd saying the KJV had mistakes in it during Church Ed at HAC. 

He now knows how wrong he was.

 

[bgwilkinson]

I remember Joe Boyd saying the KJV had mistakes in it during Church Ed at HAC.  This was in 2000.

I don't think he was trying to be controversial...I just don't think he was ever made aware of the whole KJV only debate.

Watching Bro. John Francis sitting on the platform wondering what to do was priceless

It really bothered several people I knew, but I just smiled.  If this was the worst thing Joe Boyd ever said, then we were doing ok.

KJVO was not a thing in IFB before 1980.

Other versions were freely used without condemnation.

 

[Bob H]

I remember Joe Boyd saying the KJV had mistakes in it during Church Ed at HAC.  This was in 2000.

I don't think he was trying to be controversial...I just don't think he was ever made aware of the whole KJV only debate.

Watching Bro. John Francis sitting on the platform wondering what to do was priceless

It really bothered several people I knew, but I just smiled.  If this was the worst thing Joe Boyd ever said, then we were doing ok.

KJVO was not a thing in IFB before 1980.

Other versions were freely used without condemnation.

That's because there were only couple of them out. {RSV & NASB I believe} The NIV came out in 78. Pretty much no one had time to hate it yet.

 

[Twisted]

KJVO was not a thing in IFB before 1980.

Except for the elite who knew what was coming.

 

[Twisted]

That's because there were only couple of them out. {RSV & NASB I believe} The NIV came out in 78. Pretty much no one had time to hate it yet.

That's pretty much right.  There was some flack over the ASV of 1901, but the RSV was generally despised by all unless your church was a member of the NCC.

I was introduced to the issue in the mid 70's, but that was not in an IFB church.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

This guy seems to be a?gin them new IFB?s
http://ministry127.com/pastoral-leadership/a-challenge-to-young-pastors-on-the-fence

 

[cpizzle]

This guy seems to be a?gin them new IFB?s
http://ministry127.com/pastoral-leadership/a-challenge-to-young-pastors-on-the-fence

That is one of the best articles I have ever read on the subject.  He put into words what I have been struggling with.  How do you reject certain aspects of the New IFB's when you have nothing more than a "gut feeling" that something just isn't right.  I am sure there are parts of the article that I don't fully accept, but for the most part, I think he was "spot on."

Three points that I liked the most:
1. Mega-methods aren't new, they are just new to Independent Baptists.
2. Independent Baptists should correct their flaws without losing their distinctiveness. 
3. You can't fix your weaknesses by imitating someone else.  You just swap your weaknesses for theirs.

 

[Bob H]

That's because there were only couple of them out. {RSV & NASB I believe} The NIV came out in 78. Pretty much no one had time to hate it yet.

That's pretty much right.  There was some flack over the ASV of 1901, but the RSV was generally despised by all unless your church was a member of the NCC.

I was introduced to the issue in the mid 70's, but that was not in an IFB church.

The reason I didn't mention the 1901ASV {which is a favorite of mine} is because the NASB is pretty much a revision of it and the ASV never really caught on much anyways.