Where do go if I leave the IFB movement?

[Ransom]

Thus, you don't know and refuse to admit it.

I do know. I just don't care. I'm not IFB, and I'm not bound to believe their pseudo-theology, no matter how seriously they push it.

Any reputable scholar will tell you that Paul's reference is a dig at Apollos........

Great! Cite one.

I know you haven't studied it because you don't care what IFBs teach until you want to argue with me.

Without a citation, I can probably credibly say you haven't studied it either.

In arguing the distinction between uses of "the" between "Jesus the Christ" and "John the Baptist," I cited relevant parts of the dictionary and the Bible. So far, you haven't. I'm not taking your opinion on your own ipse dixit.

Wrong Paul alluded to John being sent to Baptize.

Which does absolutely nothing to address my point: God ordained John to herald the coming of the Messiah. He did not ordain "John the Baptist" as a name and title.

Priority indicates what God sent Paul for. Just like priority was John's Baptism.

Which does not preclude Paul or any other person from also baptizing.

Thank God, you got it. You just don't know how to apply it. Even more so, Paul's actions where NOT the same. Which you just admitted. You tried to tie them together just a few moments ago.

No, I "admitted" that Paul's view of baptism and John's were distinct, and not at all the same thing. You're so far off, this doesn't even qualify as a straw man. You're not arguing with me at all, you're arguing with your imaginary friend.

For John, baptism signified repentance (Acts 9:3-5). For Paul, it signified union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-4). Two different things. If John's baptism was Christian baptism, Paul would not have rebaptized those people.

You shouldn't be double minded.

Inability to read on your part doesn't entail double-mindedness on mine.

Nope. John was to decrease and Christ was to increase. You need to let that happen. It is still needed today Ransom.

This is gibberish.

He was the only person in the Scripture with the Title/Name/Distinction.

A fact about the Bible does not constitute a rule from the Bible. The mere fact that John was called "the Baptist" does not prohibit anyone else from using the label "Baptist."

I'm trying to go by the Scriptures and you keep trying to drag me away from them.

No, you're adding to the Scriptures by prescribing behaviour that it does not.

 

[tmjbog]

In comparison to what you've used yourself. I didn't mean what you question. No. I haven't talked to all of them. I bet that I've talked to a magnitude more than you have. Especially on this subject.



Why don't you gain some experience and sample some IFBs yourself.

You mean like the one I'm currently a member of? Or the two I was a member of prior to this one? Or the two fundamentalist FWB churches that I used to be members of?

Can you explain why not?

Historical, "The Church" is just that. "The Church". Nothing local about it. We all need each other and we are all in the "family of God". I know you don't want to see nor admit this..... Tradition has you bound in shackles of oppression to your own detriment. I'm free brother. I'm just trying to help you. If you don't want to learn, then just say so and I'll let it go.

My calling isn't to your few. Nor anyone's few. My calling is to help everyone of the living family of God on this earth. At the very least, we can help one another. Iron sharpens Iron.

Ok. So than the Church at Corinth and the Church at Rome were not local churches. Got it.

 

[treasure_unseen]

I do know. I just don't care. I'm not IFB, and I'm not bound to believe their pseudo-theology, no matter how seriously they push it.
Which does absolutely nothing to address my point: God ordained John to herald the coming of the Messiah. He did not ordain "John the Baptist" as a name and title.

I'm going to drop the worthless banter we both enjoy employing at times.

Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water

Which was John's purpose and why he had the name/title/distinction. He accomplished his mission. It is why he was called THE Baptist and no one else was. Not even his own disciples who did the same.

Which does not preclude Paul or any other person from also baptizing.

Never said it did.

No, I "admitted" that Paul's view of baptism and John's were distinct, and not at all the same thing. You're so far off, this doesn't even qualify as a straw man. You're not arguing with me at all, you're arguing with your imaginary friend.

For John, baptism signified repentance (Acts 9:3-5). For Paul, it signified union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-4). Two different things. If John's baptism was Christian baptism, Paul would not have rebaptized those people.

I'm interested in just "who" it is that Paul "rebaptized"? Can you provide reference.

A fact about the Bible does not constitute a rule from the Bible. The mere fact that John was called "the Baptist" does not prohibit anyone else from using the label "Baptist."

Sure they use the label. That doesn't mean they should. There is nothing stopping you from calling yourself Christ.

No, you're adding to the Scriptures by prescribing behaviour that it does not.

I'm advocating that Baptist call themselves Christians in honor of Christ. You support their efforts to name themselves after another. You shouldn't.

 

[treasure_unseen]

You mean like the one I'm currently a member of? Or the two I was a member of prior to this one? Or the two fundamentalist FWB churches that I used to be members of?

Wow. That's pitiful. You have a pastor that dictates your theology from three historical IFB churches and you believe you know them?

I've known much more.

Ok. So than the Church at Corinth and the Church at Rome were not local churches. Got it.

Another false narrative from you. I never said they weren't.

What are you going to say if I take your example as the standard? Just how many "local churches" do you have in Corinth now? Or Rome for that matter? Most of them divided along silly man made lines of demarcation.

I've been 10 steps ahead of you this entire time. I know what you're going to say before you say it. I have plenty of experience dealing with your type of arguments.

 

[TheAlvinChimpmunk]

Leaving the IFB movement???

Jesse Jackson (Stone) left the IFB's and Tom Vineyard and Jim Vineyard never forgave him for it.

After leaving OBC/IFB movement Jesse Jackson (Stone) attended Oklahoma Christian College (Church of Christ) then moved to Dallas to be a personal trainer and professional bodybuilder. He's now into the seeker sensitive/charismatic movement as he attends Elevate Church in Frisco and studies under false prosperity teacher Keith Craft. Jackson also shares videos of other false teachers Carl Lentz, Craig Groeschel, Steven Furtick, Ed Young Jr etc. Mr. Stone (Jesse) is definitely worldly and carnal as he posts about drinking liquor and smoking cigars. His wife left because of her infidelity. Mr. Stone usually posts Facebook Live videos on "Don't Judge". His grandfather Bob Ross (formerly of Windsor Hills in Oklahoma City) came under fire and scandal and Jesse posted a month long's worth of videos on "Don't Judge".

No doubt Mr. Stone had a heavy influence on some of his classmates to leave IFB and go seeker sensitive liberal.

Joel McCarty (now a seeker sensitive megachurch pastor)

Tatiyana Rupe (model and professional YouTube vlogger)

Tom Vineyard is not happy with these people.

One person who remained faithful to the Vineyards, IFB, and the Lord was Caleb Garraway. Yes the World Famous Evangelist himself who's pulling America even during a pandemic.

Also remaining loyal to the Lord, the Vineyards and IFB is Michael Shaver. Mr. Shaver said he was disappointed in Jesse going "liberal" and taking others with him. Michael Shaver is "Pulling Iceland"

Looks like they only had three microphones and Caleb had to share one. Those were good days at Windsor Hills.

 

[tmjbog]

Wow. That's pitiful. You have a pastor that dictates your theology from three historical IFB churches and you believe you know them?

I've known much more.



Another false narrative from you. I never said they weren't.

What are you going to say if I take your example as the standard? Just how many "local churches" do you have in Corinth now? Or Rome for that matter? Most of them divided along silly man made lines of demarcation.

I've been 10 steps ahead of you this entire time. I know what you're going to say before you say it. I have plenty of experience dealing with your type of arguments.

Yes, in your simplicity world view were every one who goes to an IFB church must be mesmerized and controlled by their pastor I could see how you could get confused. The first time I meant the pastor I told him my wife was a pant wearer. Same with what I believe the Bible teaches regarding eternal security. Sorry to shatter your narrow world view of the IFB world.


Not really competing with however many steps you may or may not think you have on me.

Historical, "The Church" is just that. "The Church". Nothing local about it.

My point is simply in one post you say there is nothing local about the Church. Then when presented with churches in the Bible that were obviously local churches you try to make excuses. If I didn't know better I would think you were one of those stay at home folks who is trying to justify why they don't go to church.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

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.

You can take no treasure out of the IFB but you can't take the IFBX arrogance and attitude out of no treasure.
Haymannn!

 

[tmjbog]

You can take no treasure out of the IFB but you can't take the IFBX arrogance and attitude out of no treasure.
Haymannn!

That's exactly what I was thinking. He comes across just like some of the more abrasive IFB pastors. You either agree 100% with him or you are a heretic.

 

[treasure_unseen]

That's exactly what I was thinking. He comes across just like some of the more abrasive IFB pastors. You either agree 100% with him or you are a heretic.

More false narratives and lies. You can't find one time I've called any of you a heretic. Why are you fabricating such lies about me?

 

[treasure_unseen]

You can take no treasure out of the IFB but you can't take the IFBX arrogance and attitude out of no treasure.
Haymannn!

I don't mind bantering with you but you've got to admit you know you're wrong and you don't care.

 

[Ransom]

I'm going to drop the worthless banter we both enjoy employing at times.

So you won't be citing "any reputable scholar" that shares your opinion, then?

Why am I not surprised?

I'm interested in just "who" it is that Paul "rebaptized"? Can you provide reference.

Good grief, I've already cited it. You have the attention span of a goldfish.

So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:3-5)​

My point being, had John's baptism been valid Christian baptism, then verse 5 would have been an unnecessary rebaptism. As it was, John's baptism was not valid, and didn't count.

Sure they use the label. That doesn't mean they should.

You keep asserting this. You do nothing to prove this. Why should I believe you?

 

[Ransom]

That's exactly what I was thinking. He comes across just like some of the more abrasive IFB pastors. You either agree 100% with him or you are a heretic.

Worse, you can never be wrong--you have to also be morally or intellectually deficient.

Those times UGC and treasure_unseen went after each other? Basically, Napoleon and George Washington arguing over who runs the asylum.

 

[treasure_unseen]

So you won't be citing "any reputable scholar" that shares your opinion, then?

Why am I not surprised?

If I share, you're going to question my view of reputable. I just don't want to go down that road. Don't be "surprised" all you want.

Good grief, I've already cited it. You have the attention span of a goldfish.

So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”​

​

“John’s baptism,” they replied.​

​

Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:3-5)​

My point being, had John's baptism been valid Christian baptism, then verse 5 would have been an unnecessary rebaptism. As it was, John's baptism was not valid, and didn't count.

Look back Ransom. You referenced Acts 9. Not Acts 19. The reference is still there. I went and looked up what you referenced in Acts 9 when you posted. I did my part.

I'm not arguing against you brother on your view baptism. I wish everyone had the same view. You're dead on. Spot on. Right on point. That is not the issue here. What is at issue is why John held the distinction of being The Baptist.

You keep asserting this. You do nothing to prove this. Why should I believe you?

I know you support the Christian label for those who follow Christ. I know you do. What you don't know or have been exposed to the degree I have.... is those that are "baptist" that openly criticize and mock those who claim to be Christian alone. Those who have left the "baptist" trademark for a broader appeal to humanity.

It is absolutely true, that John held the distinction of being Baptist. No other person in the early church was ever called Baptist for a reason. Yet, here we are. Thousands of years later and apostasy on every hand and we have people that refuse to be called after the very Lord that purchased them.

 

[treasure_unseen]

Worse, you can never be wrong--you have to also be morally or intellectually deficient.

Those times UGC and treasure_unseen went after each other? Basically, Napoleon and George Washington arguing over who runs the asylum.

Irony alert.... you're one of the best at questioning intelligence and morality. Do you deny this?

 

[Ransom]

If I share, you're going to question my view of reputable.

No. I'm questioning your view of "any," since apparently it means "none."

Look back Ransom. You referenced Acts 9. Not Acts 19.

Well, thank you for pointing out the typo, but in my original post on that reference, I correctly cited it as Acts 19. If you didn't have a memory span of a few seconds, you wouldn't have to pretend you got lost in the Bible over a missing digit.

What is at issue is why John held the distinction of being The Baptist.

Because he's most famous for baptizing people, especially Jesus. Duh!

I know you support the Christian label for those who follow Christ.

And if I followed the logic you've been pushing, I would have to agree that since Christ actually was exclusively the Christ, no one else was entitled to use the label "Christian."

It is absolutely true, that John held the distinction of being Baptist.

No, he held the distinction of being "the Baptist" (i.e. the baptizer). "Baptist" (the Christian denomination stressing credobaptism, separation of church and state, and congregational church polity) and "the Baptist" (the first-century Jew who was the forerunner of the Messiah and a baptizer of repentant Jews) are two different things. No one is going to confuse John the Baptist with my friend John, who is a Baptist; nor are they going to accuse the latter of wrongly co-opting what rightfully belongs to the former. You continually and persistently commit this same category error with every post.

Thousands of years later and apostasy on every hand and we have people that refuse to be called after the very Lord that purchased them.

What in Hyles' name are you trying to argue now? That calling oneself "Baptist" is antithetical to calling oneself "Christian"? You can be both. The former is a subset of the latter.

 

[treasure_unseen]

No. I'm questioning your view of "any," since apparently it means "none."

Sure it does. You didn't check them all. Apparently, you assumption equals none.

Well, thank you for pointing out the typo, but in my original post on that reference, I correctly cited it as Acts 19. If you didn't have a memory span of a few seconds, you wouldn't have to pretend you got lost in the Bible over a missing digit.

I was just being accurate. I didn't make the connect to Acts 19 until you made it later.

And if I followed the logic you've been pushing, I would have to agree that since Christ actually was exclusively the Christ, no one else was entitled to use the label "Christian."

I would never make that argument because there is only One Christ and Christian means a follower of THE ONE.

No, he held the distinction of being "the Baptist" (i.e. the baptizer). "Baptist" (the Christian denomination stressing credobaptism, separation of church and state, and congregational church polity) and "the Baptist" (the first-century Jew who was the forerunner of the Messiah and a baptizer of repentant Jews) are two different things. No one is going to confuse John the Baptist with my friend John, who is a Baptist. You continually and persistently commit this same category error with every post.

A first century Jew wouldn't reference John's disciple "John John" as a Baptist. You know how we know?

Because they NEVER did.

You're still ignoring the point I've made that it is better to be called a Christian. According to Peter, this glorifies God. Why are you ignoring this?

 

[tmjbog]

What in Hyles' name are you trying to argue now? That calling oneself "Baptist" is antithetical to calling oneself "Christian"? You can be both. The former is a subset of the latter.

What in Hyles' name... I have a new saying.

What's interesting most of the Fundy churches I've been to point out that they are Christian first and Baptist 2nd. I've heard sermons on it.

 

[treasure_unseen]

What in Hyles' name... I have a new saying.

What's interesting most of the Fundy churches I've been to point out that they are Christian first and Baptist 2nd. I've heard sermons on it.

You can't tell it from what they call themselves. I don't see Christian on their church signs. I've heard sermon's on it myself. I've literally seen IFB preacher after preacher after preacher mock and ridicule Christian and say it has no meaning.

Besides, do you tell your wife or husband that you are "Harrison" first and a "Hyles" second?

I can assure you, one isn't going to like the other and want to be First. God will not share His Glory with anyone or any OTHER name.

 

[tmjbog]

You can't tell it from what they call themselves. I don't see Christian on their church signs.

I have to agree with you on this one. We need to get back to putting Christ in the name of churches like they did in the NT. We had The Church at Corinth, umm and the Church at Rome...er..the church at Philippi? Eh, never mind.

 

[treasure_unseen]

I have to agree with you on this one. We need to get back to putting Christ in the name of churches like they did in the NT. We had The Church at Corinth, umm and the Church at Rome...er..the church at Philippi? Eh, never mind.

What sign?

That's just more modern man made silliness. Or did you even consider that?

I'm saying you can't tell from what they want to label themselves ... If you going to use one, use the right one.