Where do go if I leave the IFB movement?

treasure_unseen said:
So you don't have a dictionary for the English word "rule"? I'll accept any reputable definition for rule. Take your pic.

When you're ruled... you have someone to report to. You know you do.
Click to expand...

I would like your own words for explaining and clarifying, not Noah Webster's.
 
tmjbog said:
Ya, well I'm not a Hyles supporter in anyway-so not sure what you are going on about.
Click to expand...

Just a little banter.

Do you believe

1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
 
ALAYMAN said:
I would like your own words for explaining and clarifying, not Noah Webster's.
Click to expand...

I don't particularly like him either. Though he had a noble cause. He just wanted every English person to speak the same way. You know us English talkers. Arrogant. Full of ourselves. Especially "us" Southerners. We love our "million dollar words"....

How about "To have authority or control over someone or something "......
 
treasure_unseen said:
Just a little banter.

Do you believe

1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
Click to expand...
Of course. I believe the Berean's had it right. Examine the Scriptures to see if they line up with what one is being taught. The Scriptures are the gold standard not the man.
 
tmjbog said:
Of course. I believe the Berean's had it right. Examine the Scriptures to see if they line up with what one is being taught. The Scriptures are the gold standard not the man.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you believe it. Apply it.

Peter said under Divine authority, that if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed but glorify God!

Christian just isn't good enough for most people. Peter said it was. I thank God I can glorify my Master in name. Christian. I refuse to be labeled or to claim any other name. Slaves have no names except to their Master.
 
treasure_unseen said:
No. It can indicate exclusivity based on context. Like when it is used to Title Jesus.
Click to expand...
So, like virtually every word, its meaning varies with context.

"I am the Scott McClare." Exclusivity. So far as I'm aware, my name is unique. (Merriam-Webster definition 1b) Similarly, "Jesus the Christ." There's only one. (Merriam-Webster definition 1b)

"Please pass the salt." Specificity. It's implicitly clear that I want my salt, in the shaker on my table, not someone else's salt, the pepper, or the butter. (definition 1a)

Vlad the Impaler, Jack the Ripper, Edward the Confessor, etc. Again, specificity. It identifies the individual you mean by describing a particular characteristic he is known/notorious for. (definition 2b[2])

John the Baptist falls into the last category. He is characterized by his practice of baptizing people. When you say he has an exclusive licence to the term "Baptist," you are equivocating on the definition of the word "the." it has a wide semantic range for such a simple word--the entry (i.e. the only entry for the word the--exclusivity) in my desktop dictionary takes up a quarter of the page (by which I mean its specific page, 1444, not that the dictionary has only one page--specificity. See what I mean?)

And in any case, the title "Baptist" used by John doesn't mean the same thing as the title "Baptist" used by a group of English Protestants. So you're ranting about nothing anyway.
 
Last edited:
Ransom said:
So, like virtually every word, its meaning varies with context.

"I am the Scott McClare." Exclusivity. So far as I'm aware, my name is unique. (Merriam-Webster definition 1b) Similarly, "Jesus the Christ." There's only one. (Merriam-Webster definition 1b)

"Please pass the salt." Specificity. It's implicitly clear that I want my salt, in the shaker on my table, not someone else's salt, the pepper, or the butter. (definition 1a)

Vlad the Impaler, Jack the Ripper, Edward the Confessor, etc. Again, specificity. It identifies the individual you mean by describing a particular characteristic he is known/notorious for. (definition 2b[2])

John the Baptist falls into the last category. He is characterized by his practice of baptizing people. When you say he has an exclusive licence to the term "Baptist," you are equivocating on the definition of the word "the." it has a wide semantic range for such a simple word--the entry (i.e. the only entry for the word the--exclusivity) in my desktop dictionary takes up a quarter of the page (by which I mean its specific page, 1444, not that the dictionary has only one page--specificity. See what I mean?)

And in any case, the title "Baptist" used by John doesn't mean the same thing as the title "Baptist" used by a group of English Protestants. So you're ranting about nothing anyway.
Click to expand...
You're a smart person Scott. You are. However, you often get in over your head when it comes to IFBs. You don't know that much about them. There isn't a good IFB in existence that would claim to be a Protestant.

John was called THE Baptist based upon what he was sent and ordained by God to do. Not what he practiced in and of itself. Remember when Paul said he wasn't sent to baptize? Paul was never called Paul THE Baptist because he wasn't sent by God to fill that distinct and Divine role. The Title Baptist was based upon God's Divine purpose in John. Not what someone later claims or purposes.

Just like Jesus was sent and ordained as THE Christ. Sure, there are people who claim they are THE Christ still today. They're lying because God has already had His say about it.
 
Last edited:
treasure_unseen said:
You're a smart person Scott. You are. However, you often get in over your head when it comes to IFBs. You don't know that much about them. There isn't a good IFB in existence that would claim to be a Protestant.

John was called THE Baptist based upon what he was sent and ordained by God to do. Not what he practiced in and of itself. Remember when Paul said he wasn't sent to baptize? Paul was never called Paul THE Baptist because he wasn't sent by God to fill that distinct and Divine role. The Title Baptist was based upon God's Divine purpose in John. Not what someone later claims or purposes.

Just like Jesus was sent and ordained as THE Christ. Sure, there are people who claim they are THE Christ still today. They're lying because God has already had His say about it.
Click to expand...
So your complaint is that the Baptists have stolen John's name? So if the Baptists changed their name to the water sub-mergers you would ok with it?
 
tmjbog said:
So your complaint is that the Baptists have stolen John's name? So if the Baptists changed their name to the water sub-mergers you would ok with it?
Click to expand...

No. You know I haven't said that at all. Why are you trying to foster a false narrative of what I've said? I never even said anything until ALAYMAN said he would be ashamed if he wasn't "baptist".

I have been clear and exacting. There is no other name that a follower of Christ should use, other than Christian. Such, honors our Lord. Other titles only subtract from the proper view of a Christian and honor the silliness of men.

What I have said about John THE Baptist is absolutely correct.

Hey. You call yourself tmjbog Christ all you want. I'm not going to believe you're telling the Truth.
 
treasure_unseen said:
No. You know I haven't said that at all. Why are you trying to foster a false narrative of what I've said? I never even said anything until ALAYMAN said he would be ashamed if he wasn't "baptist".

I have been clear and exacting. There is no other name that a follower of Christ should use, other than Christian. Such, honors our Lord. Other titles only subtract from the proper view of a Christian and honor the silliness of men.

What I have said about John THE Baptist is absolutely correct.

Hey. You call yourself tmjbog Christ all you want. I'm not going to believe you're telling the Truth.
Click to expand...

Baptists from Wiki:

"Historians trace the earliest "Baptist" church to 1609 in Amsterdam, Dutch Republic with English Separatist John Smyth as its pastor.[2] In accordance with his reading of the New Testament, he rejected baptism of infants and instituted baptism only of believing adults.[3] Baptist practice spread to England, where the General Baptists considered Christ's atonement to extend to all people, while the Particular Baptists believed that it extended only to the elect.[4] "

No mention is made of followers of John the Baptist. It was a term given to them to recognize they rejected infant baptism and only practiced believers baptism. It is only in your head that the term Baptist somehow means "followers of John".

There is a denomination out there that does precisely what you request. The Disciples of Christ typically name their churches simply "Christian Church". For instance if Raleigh, NC hand one they would call it Christian Church of Raleigh. Of course they are very liberal and it does no more service to finding a church than if they called themselves Baptists, Methodists, or anything else. I personally don't like denoms that name themselves after men such as Wesleyan or Lutheran, but I understand it's not because these people are following men, rather they are in agreement with them in regards to the doctrine they taught. You can see that in the fact that these denoms have not remained static to the teachings of those they are named after. Luther would be unfamiliar with a lot of what passes as Biblical truth in today's Lutheran church.
 
treasure_unseen said:
You're a smart person Scott. You are. However, you often get in over your head when it comes to IFBs. You don't know that much about them. There isn't a good IFB in existence that would claim to be a Protestant.
Click to expand...

That's nice. I wasn't writing to IFBs, and care little for their "Baptists-are-not-Protestants" foolishness.

John was called THE Baptist based upon what he was sent and ordained by God to do.
Click to expand...

Speaking of IFB nonsense, don't make up stuff that isn't there. The Bible doesn't say John was "sent and ordained by God" to baptize. He was sent, according to the angel's announcement to his father, "to make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Luke 1:17). in fulfillment of the prophet Isaiah (Matt. 3:3; Isa. 40:3).

Baptism was one of the means by which he did so; it was a distinguishing characteristic of his ministry: when we are first introduced to him as an adult in the Gospels, he is baptizing people (Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; John 1:24ff). The most famous story about John the Baptist in the Bible is, not surprisingly, the baptism of Jesus. "John the Baptist" is the name by which he is known, but nothing in the Bible says God divinely ordained that he be called that.

Not what he practiced in and of itself. Remember when Paul said he wasn't sent to baptize? Paul was never called Paul THE Baptist because he wasn't sent by God to fill that distinct and Divine role.
Click to expand...

And yet, he did baptize, and names the names of some of his candidates (1 Cor. 1:14-16). He didn't refuse to do so because it was someone else's job--he just had other priorities (v. 17), and also didn't want to be the object of a cult of personality (vv. 13, 15).

Additionally, Paul makes a distinction between the baptism of John, being a "baptism of repentance," and Christian baptism: he rebaptizes some of John's disciples in Jesus' name (Acts 19:3-5). It's clear enough that what John was doing was not adequate as a Christian sacrament. They weren't the same thing.

Finally, if John the Baptist was "THE Baptist based on what he was sent and ordained by God to do," then why did Jesus allow the disciples to do baptisms in his name (John 4:1-2)? Shoudln't he have known better and put a stop to it?

Just like Jesus was sent and ordained as THE Christ. Sure, there are people who claim they are THE Christ still today. They're lying because God has already had His say about it.
Click to expand...

You're still assuming, falsely, a semantic equivalence between "THE Christ" and "THE Baptist." You haven't established that John was the only "Baptist" by a long shot.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
I don‘t think true blue IFB’s like him can be broken. 😊
Click to expand...

I haven't been an IFB for over 25 years. You haven't been one for several years yourself. You just like to reminisce with them from time to time. You know they don't really like you anymore. You're in the same boat as Craig Edwards and the like. Still wanting to have a relationship with people that hate you. I'd rather have a relationship with the Truth.
 
tmjbog said:
Baptists from Wiki:

"Historians trace the earliest "Baptist" church to 1609 in Amsterdam, Dutch Republic with English Separatist John Smyth as its pastor.[2] In accordance with his reading of the New Testament, he rejected baptism of infants and instituted baptism only of believing adults.[3] Baptist practice spread to England, where the General Baptists considered Christ's atonement to extend to all people, while the Particular Baptists believed that it extended only to the elect.[4] "

No mention is made of followers of John the Baptist. It was a term given to them to recognize they rejected infant baptism and only practiced believers baptism. It is only in your head that the term Baptist somehow means "followers of John".
Click to expand...

Wikipedia is wrong. I hope you realize that Wikipedia is controlled by ungodly people.

There are so many flavors of baptist in existence, you can't possibly trust a user generated document from users that don't know any better and that is controlled by ungodly people. Yet, here you are. There are many if not the majority of IFBs that reject such claims. They believe they can trace their heritage all the way back to the preaching of the Kingdom with John THE Baptist.

It is difficult to deal with inexperienced people like yourself. If you even had a rudimentary understand of the topic, you know better.... but here you are present nonsense as fact.

There is a denomination out there that does precisely what you request. The Disciples of Christ typically name their churches simply "Christian Church". For instance if Raleigh, NC hand one they would call it Christian Church of Raleigh. Of course they are very liberal and it does no more service to finding a church than if they called themselves Baptists, Methodists, or anything else. I personally don't like denoms that name themselves after men such as Wesleyan or Lutheran, but I understand it's not because these people are following men, rather they are in agreement with them in regards to the doctrine they taught. You can see that in the fact that these denoms have not remained static to the teachings of those they are named after. Luther would be unfamiliar with a lot of what passes as Biblical truth in today's Lutheran church.
Click to expand...

I don't care what someone does today that call themselves Christian. I don't judge the term based on their actions. I judge the term based upon Scripture. I see that you could care less what the Scripture teaches. Peter said to glorify God because you are a Christian. Yet, here you are. Too ashamed to settle for what Peter said because some looney tunes person did something bad that claimed to be one.

Well. Apply the same logic to "Baptist". There have been plenty of sorry, worthless baptist that have repeatedly sinned against God. By all means. Take your own standard and apply it equally. Reject the name.
 
treasure_unseen said:
Wikipedia is wrong. I hope you realize that Wikipedia is controlled by ungodly people.
Click to expand...
Rather than make excuses and try to pre-emptively discredit Wikipedia (the ad hominem fallacy of "poisoning the well"), why don't you document the wrongness of the cited article?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top