The New IFBs... not new, just dumbed down

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
7,668
Reaction score
508
Points
113
Location
Gulf Shores, Alabama
https://www.thenewifb.com

Notice their beliefs...

*FAITH ALONE FOR SALVATION
*ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED
*KING JAMES BIBLE ONLY
*TRINITY
*SOUL-WINNING
*HARD PREACHING
*ANTI-WORLDLINESS
*ANTI-CALVINISM
*ANTI-DISPENSATIONAL
*ANTI-ZIONISM
*POST-TRIB PRE-WRATH RAPTURE

In typical 70?s-80?s form, their fundamentalism is defined by what they are AGAINST and not what they are FOR.

This is nothing new.
 
The honorable Rev. FSSL said:
https://www.thenewifb.com

Notice their beliefs...

*FAITH ALONE FOR SALVATION
*ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED
*KING JAMES BIBLE ONLY
*TRINITY
*SOUL-WINNING
*HARD PREACHING
*ANTI-WORLDLINESS
*ANTI-CALVINISM
*ANTI-DISPENSATIONAL
*ANTI-ZIONISM
*POST-TRIB PRE-WRATH RAPTURE

In typical 70?s-80?s form, their fundamentalism is defined by what they are AGAINST and not what they are FOR.

This is nothing new.
2f0794609b157213161d6f1ba69eb833.gif
 
They are one of a few groups declaring themselves to be the new IFBs.
I guess this is what the old paths led to...
 
The honorable Rev. FSSL said:
https://www.thenewifb.com

Notice their beliefs...

*FAITH ALONE FOR SALVATION
*ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED
*KING JAMES BIBLE ONLY
*TRINITY
*SOUL-WINNING
*HARD PREACHING
*ANTI-WORLDLINESS
*ANTI-CALVINISM
*ANTI-DISPENSATIONAL
*ANTI-ZIONISM
*POST-TRIB PRE-WRATH RAPTURE

In typical 70?s-80?s form, their fundamentalism is defined by what they are AGAINST and not what they are FOR.

This is nothing new.

Let's hope their kids reject a couple of those beliefs when they get out of the house and on their own.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
They are one of a few groups declaring themselves to be the new IFBs.
I guess this is what the old paths led to...

The real old paths at least for the "Baptists" go back to the 1600's when John Bunyan wrote Pilgrim's Progress in prison.
 
The honorable Rev. FSSL said:
https://www.thenewifb.com

Notice their beliefs...

*FAITH ALONE FOR SALVATION
*ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED
*KING JAMES BIBLE ONLY
*TRINITY
*SOUL-WINNING
*HARD PREACHING
*ANTI-WORLDLINESS
*ANTI-CALVINISM
*ANTI-DISPENSATIONAL
*ANTI-ZIONISM
*POST-TRIB PRE-WRATH RAPTURE

In typical 70?s-80?s form, their fundamentalism is defined by what they are AGAINST and not what they are FOR.
This is nothing new.
Ransom, FSSl and others,

I agree IFB churches, old, new or otherwise, needs to focus more on what they do and spend less time on what they don't do. That being said, other than KJVO, what on that list do you disagree with. What on that list is unscriptural. We can disagree all day on what methods are or are not effective, but I'm interested in what's not biblically.

 
The Anti-Zionism might be problematic.
 
sword said:
What on that list is unscriptural. We can disagree all day on what methods are or are not effective, but I'm interested in what's not biblically.

That's a fair question. I do want to note, overall, this is a lame confession... whether one agrees with their theology, or not. Defining oneself as AGAINST THIS AND THAT is not helpful. Why not just state, clearly what you are FOR? Or, is defining what they are actually FOR, so controversial that it is safer to just say what they are AGAINST?

With that note... here are the problems:

Notice their beliefs...

*FAITH ALONE FOR SALVATION: They reject the idea of a need to repent of sin and seek forgiveness. Luke 24:45ff is ultra clear that... "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

*ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED: This is fine.

*KING JAMES BIBLE ONLY: Of course, for a ton of debate... but I must ask, which King James Bible is without error? They have many differences.

*TRINITY: Wholly lacking explanation. Again, they are more interested in telling us they are against modalism and not writing out, clearly, the functions and essence of the trinity.

*SOUL-WINNING: I am all for it... not their method, but this is fine on its face.

*HARD PREACHING: "Hard??? preaching?" We are not compelled to preach hard. We are commanded to preach the word. Unfortunately, there is a huge lack of expositing of Scripture by Anderson et al. They  are more interested in their own pathetic illustrations. Remember the "pisseth on the wall" series?

*ANTI-WORLDLINESS: Their standards are just carry overs from the 1970s, not scripture.

*ANTI-CALVINISM: Wait! They said, above, that they believe in eternal security. That is a Calvinist doctrine. They clearly, and correctly said, "Salvation is a free gift. If you could lose your salvation, then that would mean salvation depends upon you." They also say under the topic of Soul-Winning, that they are "a movement that has a love for the lost and want as many people to go to heaven as possible." They subscribe to some points of Calvinism, yet say they are anti-Calvinistic.

*ANTI-DISPENSATIONAL: They don't even know what dispensationalism is. Dispensationalists that I have read and been taught by, ALL believe that salvation is by grace through faith.

*ANTI-ZIONISM: Then they are antiSemitic. I don't know why they have to tell everyone they are racist.

*POST-TRIB PRE-WRATH RAPTURE: Well then.
 
The honorable Rev. FSSL said:
sword said:
What on that list is unscriptural. We can disagree all day on what methods are or are not effective, but I'm interested in what's not biblically.

Notice their beliefs...


*ANTI-DISPENSATIONAL: They don't even know what dispensationalism is. Dispensationalists that I have read and been taught by, ALL believe that salvation is by grace through faith.

*ANTI-ZIONISM: Then they are antiSemitic. I don't know why they have to tell everyone they are racist.

*POST-TRIB PRE-WRATH RAPTURE: Well then.

I would suspect the "post-trib" and the "anti-Zionist" are the points at which they can claim they're not dispensationalists.
 
Also note that the #1 church in their directory is St. Spammy's Cathedral.
 
brianb said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
They are one of a few groups declaring themselves to be the new IFBs.
I guess this is what the old paths led to...

The real old paths at least for the "Baptists" go back to the 1600's when John Bunyan wrote Pilgrim's Progress in prison.

Many/most of the old path-ers  I?m referring to hardly know who Bunyan was and even fewer have actually read Pilgrims Progress. They are the generation that oversaw the demise of the IFB movement that flourished in the 60?s-70?s.

Today the movement has split and splintered into a Heinz 57 varieties of IFB incarnations. Of those various splinter groups, most are out on some deep end tangent from the idiocy of Anderson?s group, to the cheesy, stereotypical, man worshipping, hold on to the past glory of the John Hamblen (sp) group to people who believe screens and drums are sinful and evangelism must be knocking doors....blah, blah, blah.

Of all the blather, the repentance is a work, KJVO and no pants on ladies are the 3 sacred cow doctrines that show their lack of scholarship and lack of Biblical understanding. At least to me. And as a life long IFB (up until a few years ago) I really do grieve for and am infuriated at the loons that pose as IFB?s.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
...at the loons that pose as IFB?s.

This loon still loves you (In Jesus' Name...ok?)
 
Twisted said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
...at the loons that pose as IFB?s.

This loon still loves you (In Jesus' Name...ok?)

Thank you for the kind sentiment, but I wasn?t aware that you were a loon... :)
 
sword said:
[That being said, other than KJVO, what on that list do you disagree with.

Anti-Calvinism. Obvious, since I'm a Calvinist, and I think Calvinist soteriology has irrefutable support from the Bible.

Along the same lines, "once saved always saved." Not because I believe anyone genuinely saved can lose their salvation. As a Calvinist, of course, I believe salvation is God's prerogative. Saying you can lose your salvation is the equivalent of saying God can lose you. The problem with "once saved always saved" is that when you reject Calvinism, you undercut the theological foundations of eternal security: once God has done the work to save you, he continues to work to keep you.

"King James Bible Only": As you point out, this one's obvious. It's a bibliological heresy. And with Steve Anderson, it's a major theological heresy as well, since he literally idolizes the KJV.

"Soul-winning": Again, not that I have any objection to winning souls, but Anderson's theology is not merely anti-Calvinist, but anti-Lordship, which is a bit of an oddball for someone who is also anti-Dispensationalist. Antinomian theology is a false gospel, so Anderson and his crowd are winning souls into hell.

"Hard preaching": If they meant preaching the Bible's hard or uncomfortable truths boldly, no problem. But the "new IFB" are basically just like the old IFB in this regard: by "hard preaching" they mean shouting a lot about their Pharisaical standards. Spamderson has infamously preached that 1 Kings 14:10 means manly men urinate standing up. Is that "hard preaching"? No, it's superficial and juvenile.

"Anti-Zionism": I believe there is still an eschatological purpose to God's relationship with the Jews; he isn't done with them yet. I also believe that the present nation of Israel has a right to exist and that it is a valuable ally to the West. I don't agree with the evangelical form of Zionism that says the promises of the Bible concerning the Jews apply to the secular state of Israel. Those promises are fulfilled in Christ and available to Jews and Gentiles both. Anderson, however, has gone full conspiracy theorist with anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. If that's what they mean by "anti-Zionism," I'm wholly opposed to them.

"Anti-Dispensationalism" and "Post-trip pre-wrath rapture": I'm not a Dispensationalist, and I feel I can argue persuasively against Dispensationalism on scriptural grounds. But I happily fellowship in Dispensationalist circles. So I wouldn't paint myself as "anti-Dispensationalist." But marrying anti-Dispensationalism with an eschatological viewpoint that assume Dispensationalist categories (in the pre-wrath view, the Great Tribulation occurs at the midpoint of Daniel's 70th week) demonstrates a certain amount of confusion.
 
The honorable Rev. FSSL said:
sword said:
What on that list is unscriptural. We can disagree all day on what methods are or are not effective, but I'm interested in what's not biblically.

That's a fair question. I do want to note, overall, this is a lame confession... whether one agrees with their theology, or not. Defining oneself as AGAINST THIS AND THAT is not helpful. Why not just state, clearly what you are FOR? Or, is defining what they are actually FOR, so controversial that it is safer to just say what they are AGAINST?

With that note... here are the problems:

Notice their beliefs...



*POST-TRIB PRE-WRATH RAPTURE: Well then.



The difference between the POST-TRIB PRE-WRATH RAPTURE position and the Pre-Trib rapture position is..........................................semantics


;)




 
Rev 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.

Revelation 2:14  But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.


:eek: :D ;D
 
The honorable Rev. FSSL said:
https://www.thenewifb.com

Notice their beliefs...

*FAITH ALONE FOR SALVATION
*ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED
*KING JAMES BIBLE ONLY
*TRINITY
*SOUL-WINNING
*HARD PREACHING
*ANTI-WORLDLINESS
*ANTI-CALVINISM
*ANTI-DISPENSATIONAL
*ANTI-ZIONISM
*POST-TRIB PRE-WRATH RAPTURE

In typical 70?s-80?s form, their fundamentalism is defined by what they are AGAINST and not what they are FOR.

This is nothing new.

The last 2 are new to IFB but not new to "christian circles" These guys are IFB on heroine and i would suspect J Frank norris would shoot em if came knocking on his door .
 
Saved by Grace said:
These guys are IFB on heroine and i would suspect J Frank norris would shoot em if came knocking on his door .

Lol!
 
Agent P said:
Also note that the #1 church in their directory is St. Spammy's Cathedral.

I've noticed there is one in Canada too but I had never heard of it before. On their What we believe page I found something strange.  It says No sodomite will be allowed to attend their services. Yes I know their unorthodox anti-New Testament position on homosexuals.  They try to use the Old Testament as support for this belief. By that logic wouldn't they have to include those with deformities or someone born out of wedlock? 
 
Top