We pick and choose those we call friend
And ask “who is my neighbor?”
Begrudging love to those in need —
Why waste our time and labor?
For we can guess each hidden sin,
“He drank”, “She stole”, “They slandered.”
The Lord may love the whole wide world
We have a higher standard.
I choose to be first
God ordained me to be second.
And with the first two posts we start a debate on Calvinism. Way to go guys.
theirs no debate to have! those haretics are gone burn
I was predestined to be fourth. 🙁
Inasmuch as I thought I was predestined to be fourth, it appears instead that God had left the future open, and Jason slipped in before me. 😳
You Molinist
Leave it to a Fundy to think they have a higher standard than God! 🙄
That’s exactly what I like to say: some people are “holier than God” which is absolutely ridiculous!
Please tell me this is a memoir of times past and not a poem the IFB uses. Please tell me its not so.
I suspect this is a poem that Darrell wrote to highlight the way things go in fundydom.
Yup.
You forgot “she’s bitter!” lol 🙂
I wish the fundies would come right out and say that they have a higher standard than God. Then it would be easy to be off the hook. Instead they claim to have Bible standards, and now I have to work to live up to those standards, since God isn’t even in it.
Why can’t you never miss a service? Why can’t I take my Bible and another lady to a shut in, and we have a study together? We’re still “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves.” But, if I first have to be at every service, it gets to be a lot to see the shut in on top of that. Sorry, the funny part of my brain is awake yet.
ISN’T awake yet. Duh.
God forbid you would love weak and friendless people when you could be sitting in the pew being yelled at
It’s the same old story, you need to attend all three services, attend the pre-service prayer meeting, attend all special meetings, homeschool or pay for a Christian school for your children, tithe your income, etc…THOSE rules are mandatory. Anything you do for the Lord doesn’t start until after you’ve done those basics. Now mind you, these aren’t heavy burdens at all, because the Lord said his burden is easy.
I actually did have a youth pastor who once said that we should have standards higher than the Bible. That’s why we couldn’t hold hands when the Bible prohibits fornication.
“For we can guess each hidden sin”….that’s one of the parts I really despise most about the IFB. They can just assume to know everything about every situation and tell you how it REALLY must be (even if the situation was yours). 👿
It would make much easier if they did just come out and say it, but they pretty much say they. Look at the “dress code” on FBC of Hammond’s website. They F’n call it “heavenly dress becuase thats what they dress like in heavan”! Are you kidding me? WHo the eff knows what they wear in heaven.
Oh for heaven’s sake! What a load of presumptuous nonsense. The Bible talks about robes of righteousness. I think we will wear robes in heaven like they wore in Bible days, something like that anyway. Something comfortable. I suppose they think all the men will wear suits and ties for all eternity while women have their oh so modest skirts and blouses so they don’t cause the men to lust even in heaven. Right, leave it to a fundy! 👿
I’m gonna leave my robe open.
I will hold you to that 🙂
God does not care about people being comfortable. He cares about them submitting to His commands. In the Deuteronomy women are commanded not to dress like men. 1 Timothy 2:9-10 makes it clear that women should dress MODESTLY. This excludes pants on women, which are not modest. Skirts with a length past the knee were worn by all women in Jesus day. I do not allow the women or girls in my church to wear culottes either. Girls who want to wear culottes are trying to wear pants under a disguise of modesty. Fortunately God sees their hart of frowardness and rebellion against authority.
You do not have the right to alter this tradition, nay, this COMMAND of God merely by claiming that people will wear comfortable clothes in Heaven. How do you know that we will not wear suits and ties in heaven? I find a suit and tie to be extremely comfortable, plus it sets a higher standard than the pagan, who we should be trying to win to Christ, instead of rebelling and arguing over obvious sin like this.
Is there a Bingo in there somewhere?
Let’s get out the checklist:
MIsspellings – check!
Unnecessary use of capslock key – check!
Focus on sin and soulwinning – check!
“Dr.” attached to the pastor’s name – check!
I hope this is an awesome parody, but if not, I think we have ourselves a fundy!
Too funny! 😆
I honeslty cant believe you just said “I do not allow woman to wear, etc…”. I honestly cant believe you just said that. So the prostitute Jesus said “go and sin no more” to was wearing a dress? Do you honestly think that? No, she was probably dressed like a prostitue for that day and era. Let me guess, Jesus wore a suit too because that appealed to the evil tax collector right? That appealed to the Samaritan woman? Man, you are seriously messed up. To even quote a passage from Deut. is absurd. Havent you ever read “for by grace you are saved”? that’s God’s grace, not yours or Jack Hyles, or any human being that has ever walked this planet other Christ alone. Get your mind right Dr. That is if you even earned that degree, its probably honorary. Am I wrong? Man, you really make me mad with your holier than thou attitude. You said it yourself, it’s a tradition. Traditions are man made. Who tried to keep the traditions in the four Gospels? That’s right, the pharisees. I guess the Sanhedrin would welcome you to the club gladly!
Our friend here just keeps on reminding me why I left fundamentalism. Too many sanctimonious prigs who think they have every right to lord it over everyone. Give them a “Dr.” in front of their name or call them Pastor so and so and they think it gives them the right to order everyone around.
Jesus did NOT wear a suit and tie, He wore a robe like everyone else in that day. They dressed a lot more comfortably and the clothes were modest, both men and women. What makes him think that modern day clothing is what will be worn in heaven? The Bible specifically talks about robes in heaven, not suits and ties, dresses and uncomfortable nylons and high heels! 👿
Poe. Well done Jonathon.
Please reply back “Dr.” Jonathon. You probably just earned an extra star in heaven for entering the “world” like the Apostle Paul did and you probably congratulated yourself for that post. I know your type. I was there. I used to be you. Sadly, I have to remind myself every so often to “snap” out of it because I was brainwashed by despots like you. You have no idea what they wear in heaven. The Bible says “they will be clothed with the righteousness of Christ”. That’s it homie. Checkity check yourself be yourself you reck yourself.
Hey Doctor, why are you allowed on the internet? Just curious, they didnt have the internet during Bible times. They didnt have the internet when Hyles started spewing his hate. So, I’m curious, why are you “allowed” to use the internet? Or can just men use the internet and woman cant? Better yet, if you have an FB account (that’s facebook if you didnt know) why are you allowed to have that? what is your explanation? because Jack Schaap said so?
Jonathan, you said” In the Deuteronomy women are commanded not to dress like men. 1 Timothy 2:9-10 makes it clear that women should dress MODESTLY. This excludes pants on women, which are not modest.”
Uhh, what about men -Arn’t they supposed to dress modestly too? and what does that mean? Suits and ties at all times? No jeans, tee-shirts, open-necked shirts? Who do you think LOOKs more like a Christian – the man who wears a suit and tie, espcially when he goes to church three times a year, or someone like me who wears jeans, open-necked shirts, and has tattoos? I doubt if I look like a christian to you, so maybe I’m deceiving myself about having salvation…. and why do you sound like a really bad caricature?
Okay, the blog linked to this sounds a little smarter and a little more open than this post. Are you funning with us? If so, well done. If not, well, I hope you grow up!
Modesty isn’t required for men, you know. After all, godly women don’t have sex drives. We’re supposed to just lay there and let Hubby have his way while we think of England. While we’re at it, only do it covered up with a sheet with a strategically placed hole so he can’t see anything and lust.
Yeah, and if that’s God’s design for sex, forget it. Fortunately, I do know better 😉
Dear Doctor JD III,
You were great for your first four sentences. Then, you wrote This excludes pants on women, which are not modest. You made the statement flatly, with no Scripture to back it up. An unsupported statement, no matter how dramatic, is not proof. Your next sentence was Skirts with a length past the knee were worn by all women in Jesus day. This is another flat statement, with no proof of your position. My understanding is that they standard dress was robe-like (more like dresses than skirts). A “skirt” implies a separate top – at least as I understand the meaning of the word. Even if your statement were true, I doubt that “all women” wore skirts — I’m sure that, as in every age, there were exceptions.
Sadly, you went downhill from there with the next statement I do not allow the women or girls in my church to wear culottes either. This does not sound like a church, but like a cult – “I do not allow” – sounds more like a dictator than a man who is a servant to the people. Do you stand at the door of your church and tell girls/women who are not dressed properly to go home and not come in? The lost will no doubt see this as mean and judgmental. Aren’t you getting the cart before the horse? Shouldn’t people get saved and THEN grow? There really is a Holy Spirit, and He is able to teach His own what is modest. Perhaps if you’d have some patience and allow Him to do His job, you could relax more in your job. With your actions, you are filling up your church with people conforming to your rules, not being transformed by the Spirit of God.
Finally, a note to you: if all our righteousness is as filty rags before we are saved, then our works for God are STILL, at best, filthy rags. It is gracious of God to reward our small, halting, failing efforts on His part. You are still a pagan, sir, just a saved pagan. Do not consider yourself better than the one you are trying to win.
Thanks for stopping by Dr, you’re making me look good. Heck, I might even get invited to the 4th of July SFL cookout now! (it was too late for the Memorial Day picnic, invitations had already gone out)
Dr JDIII, you might fool all of them. But you don’t fool me. You’re an imposter. (Pulls off his toupee.) See, under the bad toupee, you are sporting a pony tail!
If the guy who wrote that comment is the same guy writing the blog his name links to, then there’s no way he’s serious.
For example, this one of his most recent posts:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/05/21/4-ways-to-fight-clean-over-doctrine/
Can I barf now? 👿
This reminds me of a time my wife and I listened to a fundy preacher rant on clothes. 🙄 My wife pointed out that his pants were so tight, she could see everything, 😯 which meant she couldn’t follow the sermon. I thought back and realized she was right. 😳 I couldn’t listen to him after that. 🙄
Why that evil man to stand up there with tight pants distracting the women and causing them to lust! Shame on him! God will hold him accountable you know for causing his sisters in Christ to sin! 😈
“How do you know that we will not wear suits and ties in heaven? I find a suit and tie to be extremely comfortable, plus it sets a higher standard than the pagan, who we should be trying to win to Christ, instead of rebelling and arguing over obvious sin like this.”
Dude? So that’s how it is? In hell, they will have on shorts, t-shirts, bikinis, jeans and culottes.
But in heaven, all the wimmens will have on flower print dresses and all the menfolk will have on suits and ties and dress shoes.
When Hell Freezes over!
Nicely done, sir! You do sound unnervingly authentic.
How presumptuous to state that God doesn’t care if we are comfortable. I’m not sure what we will wear in Heaven, but I cant help but contemplate what Adam and Eve wore when they were in perfect peace with God.
You’re so full of poop, it is coming out of your ears faster than you speak.
Duet 22:5 is law, that was done away with when Christ died. You, dictating who wears what in your cult, I mean church just proves the statement, you are a dictator and more than likely a pervert if you are so concerned with what women wear.
Get a life
Spot on impersonation! Although I’ve heard tripe like that in almost every church I’ve attended…
I’ve been tricked before, but not this time Mr. Poe. Too obvious.
This is awesome, Jonathan.
Unless you really mean it. Then I’m 😯
If God cares not for my comfort and focuses only upon my subservience (I know you used “submission,” but that’s not what you meant, since submission is bound with love)), then God is a tyrant.
Love is of God, and everyone who loves is born of God and knoweth God. He who loves not does not know God, because God is love.
Love is patient, love is kind, it isn’t jealous, it doesn’t brag, it isn’t arrogant, it isn’t rude, it doesn’t seek its own advantage, it isn’t irritable, it doesn’t keep a record of complaints, it isn’t happy with injustice, but it is happy with the truth. Love puts up with all things, trusts in all things, hopes for all things, endures all things. Love never fails.
God sees me naked, no matter how many layers (physical or “spiritual”) I put on. He does love me more clothed in my filthy rags of man-made righteousness, but neither does He love me less. However, it is His unfailing love that leaves me unashamed when I allow Him to strip me of my self-righteousness and clothe me with His holiness.
Where to start….
Let’s start with Deuteronomy. The verse in question has been a source of both Jewish and Christian controversy, because of the exact phrasing in Hebrew. It appears that the “man” as translated in nearly any English translation perhaps should be translated as “mighty man” or “warrior” – it is geber, which emphasizes strength. Furthermore, the word translated “that which pertains” is keliy, which is article, vessel, implement, or utensil. So many have concluded that this commands that women should not wear the gear of the mighty man – armor and weapons. Therefore warriors are forbidden to wear women’s clothing, to appear as women. The problem with making a distinction between men’s and women’s ordinary clothing in any time between the writing of Deuteronomy and the time of Christ is that there just wasn’t much difference. Both wore simple under tunics and wraparound robes in normal daily life, and had done so from the time of Moses (who used the same word, ketoneth, used for daily clothing at the time to describe the garments made by God for Adam and Eve. Dresses in the sense we use them, especially long dresses, were also unknown. A large outer garment, like a Scottish plaid, could easily be worn as a long robe-like garment, but both men and women kilted (tied up above the knees) their outer garments for work – say, washing in a river, or plowing. So suggesting that women exclusively wore long skirts in the time of Christ is mistaken.
Why pants? They were rare throughout the Mediterranean regions in the Classical period – the Roman legionaries adapted braccae from the Germanic peoples who wore then in the cool, wet north of Europe. Trousers were commonly worn in Persia and throughout central Asia from early times to the Classical period by both men and women. Trousers came into European vogue (again, and now only for men) in the early Middle Ages, and probably had more to do with combat (and military horsemanship) than anything else.
You quote Timothy and rip the verse about modest attire out of context. The two important things bout the context are this:
1) men are called out first to be men of prayer. Women are to not adorn themselves expensively, but rather be modest. The word modest in Greek (kosmios) means “well-ordered and becoming” and has more to do with not overspending on ornament. Furthermore, the apostle says here specifically “I want” of both men and women. What makes that a command of God? It’s Paul’s DESIRE that this be the case. But enough about clothes.
There’s a deeper question or two here. First, why do you (or any other Christian pastor, for that matter) insist on observance of some of the Torah? If the viewpoint truly is “it is the COMMAND of God” then where is your observance of the kashrut? Do you keep Sabbath? Celebrate all the festivals? Are you Bar Mitzvah? Do you hold to the authoriy of the Talmud? Why are the parts of Torah you harp on the important parts, and the rest comfortably ignored? I suspect that the answer lies in this quote:
I do not allow the women or girls in my church to wear culottes either. Girls who want to wear culottes are trying to wear pants under a disguise of modesty. Fortunately God sees their hart of frowardness and rebellion against authority.
It’s all about you, isn’t it? I’m sure God does see (and judge) based on the heart. Consider this, and consider the burdens you place upon the people who listen trustingly to you. The Lord Jesus Christ had warnings for other men who thought their special role implied more than it did.
Beth wrote “Okay, the blog linked to this sounds a little smarter and a little more open than this post. Are you funning with us? If so, well done. If not, well, I hope you grow up!”
I have read some of Jonathon David III’s blog and in it,he does come across as unacceptably sensible for a true Fundie. However, it is in the more unguarded moments that reveal what is truly in the heart of the Chrisian, especially when something rattles your cage.
Fundy love = yelling at you for not being good enough or not forsaking your sin. By their logic, they are showing love to “the world.” 🙄
This poem pretty much nails it. I love the part about knowing your secret sins – that fundy habit really does get annoying.
How much pain can one poem express.
Fundies= Modern pharisees. 😥
Who Is My Neighbor? How poignant considering this comment by Zsuzsanna Anderson I read this morning:
…Assuming that unlike Mary, these single moms did not conceive miraculously while living in celibacy, I say they should not be a single mother to begin with. As in, don’t have sex outside marriage, and you cannot end up a single mother.
If you chose to disobey God’s clear command on this, you may (through your own fault) put yourself in a situation where no matter which solution you chose (work a job that requires you to relinquish your kids to the care of others, or live off welfare), you will be doing wrong. That’s not God’s fault.
The Bible makes it clear that widows are supposed to be supported by their sons, nephews, or other male relatives. This doesn’t sit well in our world of mini-families, where many have no extended family to support them. Widows are also supposed to remarry if they are under the age of 60, in which case their future husband will provide for them.
Widows above that age, if they have no relatives to care for them, if they have only been married once before, if they have brought up children, and if they are faithful Christians, are supposed to be provided for by the church – and those only. Not every baby mamma that couldn’t keep her clothes on.
Maybe young people would stop sleeping around like animals if they had to worry about providing their illegitimate offspring with food and clothes…
is the above comment about single moms a parody or the real thing?
So, in a nutshell, the church shouldn’t help widows unless they are above the age of 60? And forget about single moms, they get to wear a scarlet A for the rest of their lives, while we look down our noses at them and say, “that’s not God’s fault”?
And does this person actually believe that people can doom themselves, by making one bad decision, to being in a position where any choice they make is a sin? For that matter, who says that relinquishing your child to someone else’s care (grandma, babysitter, daycare, etc.) is always a sin? Where’s the verse for that in the King James?
It wouldn’t be surprising if Zsuzsanna Anderson actually said these things, but I’m not sure where JessB would have gotten it from
I think where Zsuzsanna Anderson is concerned, it’s just about impossible to work out where the line is between “parody” and “the real thing”. I mean, she *is* a parody. But not on purpose.
(I find Zsuzsanne bizarrely fascinating, largely because she’s not a cradle Fundie. She’s orginally from Germany and was raised Catholic.)
It is the real thing and you can read it for yourself on Zsu’s blog. It is one of the last comments under the blog post titled, Ahahahaha! Parenting.
http://stevenandersonfamily.blogspot.com/2012/05/ahahahaha-parenting.html
Jess, did you see further down that thread where she said that taking care of the orphans and widows was a command but that it’s voluntary? She’s nuts.
Darrell would be good at rap battle.
and another thing-the statement about “widows are supposed to remarry if they are under 60” . . .
one of the things I hated most about the fundamentalist view of marriage was that they believed that for any person, no matter how downright ugly they were, how much interpersonal skill they lacked, how financially unprepared they were, or how romantically or sexually inclined they were, marriage was undoubtedly God’s will for them, and it was entirely possible to achieve anytime they wished.
And then marriages are entered in unwisely because people feel they have to get married – especially women. And we end up with abused women and children; women and children living in poverty because, for one reason or another, hubby can’t make enough money to provide for his family; husbands and wives who can’t stand each other, etc. etc.
Contrary to popular belief, quoting the Bible does not make one a fundy. Obviously, I disagree with almost the entirety of what Zsuzsanna Anderson said. However, “widows are supposed to remarry if they are under 60” is pretty much exactly what 1 Timothy 5:9, 11, and 14 say when looked at in context.
That’s freaking old testament isreal darn it!!! Really, can a woman be forced to marry because she became a widow in our culture and time??? This really upsets me when people take stuff like this and act like it is for now. Do brothers still have to go have sex with the deceased brother’s childless widow??? But, duh, it’s right there in the Bible… I am so irate about this because I drank that koolaid and it’s a load. I personally don’t know of ANY church that actually supports any widows as in fully taking them on for whatever they need. Talk about picking and choosing which old testament stuff to harp on and which to ignore. Yuck. Man people, I don’t know where all this I just typed came from but there it is. 👿
You do realize that we are talking about 1 Timothy, right?
Yes, I do, okay what I meant is that to expect women to go get married for the sole purpose that they won’t be a “burden” to others is just not something that happens in our culture and it shouldn’t. Women who have been smart enough not to have that view of themselves as only useful and able to support themselves by being attatched to a man have spared themselves a whole lot of loss of sense of purpose should they find themselves single later in life. That comment just hit a major nerve with me. I wish I wouldn’t have drank that koolaid and given myself the gift of developing some sort of money generating and intellectually stimulating and affirming skills instead of being taught that my place was soley in the home and that my worth came from making a man’s life easier.
I’m not sure who you are arguing against, or if you are arguing against anyone. I didn’t say that young women were to marry for the sole purpose of not being a burden on others.
Just to clear up any confusion. I agree with your point about many fundies encouraging people to marry when it is unwise to do so for various and sundry reasons.
so does this mean that they are required to go throw themselves at all the aging eligible bachelors until one finally bites? Down with the necklines, up with the skirt hems, because they MUST marry?
I appreciate that straw man argument. Summarizes what I said quite well.
I’m sorry that it came across that way-I was going for ‘ad absurdum’, not trying to mock you. I’m sure that my extreme summary doesn’t really express what you think the scriptural command is, but I was just wondering how you do interpret it. And still am, actually. Hope I haven’t offended you.
No problem. First off, in Paul’s other writings he notes that it is ok, and possibly beneficial to remain single for the sake of the gospel. The Bible is also clear that as a general rule, we should seek to marry and establish God-honoring families. So we have a general principle (to marry) that allows some exceptions.
When we get to 1 Timothy, the context is “who should the church take care of?” If the church finances women of working and marriageable age, the women have opportunity to be idle, which is never recommended in Scripture. In our society where women can support themselves with jobs, this is slightly different. I think there is still a general principle (marrying is usually a wise idea), but there are exceptions. Certainly throwing oneself on men is not what Paul had in mind.
I attended a church where a certain widow took this command to re-marry, um, a bit too literally. We women took turns keeping her busy during church social functions to protect the men. 😆
lol. I don’t know who to feel more sorry for.
“Begrudging love” — I don’t think they’d say it, but that’s it exactly. “Why waste our time and labor?” This is such an easy thing to think. People DO take advantage of you. They DO ask for help but when they get it, go right back to the same behaviors that got them in trouble in the first place. Trying to help our neighbor can be a discouraging, even crushing thing to do in the long term. You look back on year after year and wonder if it’s been all a waste.
That’s why for me I have to serve as unto the Lord. If I see JESUS when I help the person in need, I don’t have to feel that I’m wasting my time no matter if the person responds or changes or not.
You are so right! That is the way a christian should see it. You are wise.
Question to Tim – where on the FBC website is it referring to dress? Just curious, I don’t see it anywhere. I don’t even see a statement of faith on there???
To Dr. Jonathon or whatever, that is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.
I’m Tim’s brother, Kev.
http://www.fbchammond.com/new/what-we-believe/
thanks. I ought to behave like a citizen of Heaven??
Guess I won’t go soulwinning this week then, after all. There won’t be tears in Heaven. I don’t forsee me living without the occasional breakdown into tears.
I’m not getting something, probably better off that way.
if i was duped then the doctor did a good job and honestly sounded like the IFB cult. Hats off to you then. but get a life for trolling around an actual thread exploiting the cult. @ Templewoman, check out that link, you better dress like a citizen of heaven.
You hurt my feelings, tim
“Esau have I hated.”
😈
Esau chose to be hated, just ask greg, he’ll tell you
Imagine if Jesus had been a fundy. Just imagine . . .
I know this is a little off topic but I have a serious question and I’m sure some of you guys (n gals) could answer it for me.
Why do I.F.B. churches believe that the King James version of the Bible is the only version of the Bible one should be studying and learning from? I personally use the NIV/The Message Parallel Bible only because I find it easier to understand. Why is it only King James and what grounds do they base their belief on how the NIV for example is wrong?
Any answers would be greatly appreciated, I was brought up in an I.F.B. church and have been free from it for the past 5 years, I may add these past few years have been the best in my life seeing who Christ really is and I am in constant awe of the love that I now feel!!
In a nutshell they believe that the “Textus Receptus” is a pure and inerrant group of manuscripts that were flawlessly translated in 1611.
All other versions come from the “Critical” text which they see as a catholic/satanic/masonic/whatever conspiracy to corrupt the Bible and remove the blood and deity of Christ and suchlike things.
That’s a good summary of what they believe about the KJV. I might add that hardly any of that is true.
Yep, untrue because (while they don’t know this) most of it is based on a document written by a JW preacher (or whatever they are called) who made most of it up. 😉 Imagination, when the facts just aren’t enough.
In the smaller rural areas it mainly boils down to “Old Paths” thinking. It was good enough for our fathers and their father’s fathers and their fathers before them so its good enough for us.
If you ask someone in, say, the average rural IFB church in NC why they hold to the King James, I would wager good money that only one in a thousand could articulate why they hold to the KJV without parroting the general fluff, “It is God’s preserved word to the english speaking people”,”It is tried and true”,”God used it to save souls for 400 years.” blah, blah, blah.
Basically, KJVO is a learned behavior.*
(*see: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_monkey_banana_and_water_spray_experiment_ever_take_place )
It also seems to stem from a fear of anything academic. They don’t want learned men making decisions about which of the oldest fragments are best because they don’t trust academia. It’s easier to justify trusting ancient dead men. It’s kinda like the IFB’s version of Catholic sainthood.
Wow, that’s absurd! If they were THAT obsessed with the “flawless” translation you would think they would be reading from an Aramaic or Hebrew bible..or whatever language it’s originally written in (I’m not sure which language that would be). BUT none the less, Thanks guys for answering my question! I really appreciate it!
I think that the answer that was posted may have been a little misleading.
IFBs are, by name, independent of one another, and aren’t going to be 100% the same on everything. IN addition there is a kind of split among those who support the KJV (more later).
Having been in IFB churches for years, here is the general teaching:
– God gave his word to men whom He chose… He gave His word in Hebrew, Greek, and some Aramaic. This has historically been called “inspiration”. All IFBs I have met all agree that the Bible is inspired of God.
– Not only did God give His word, He promised to preserve it. This has been shown pretty clearly with the Jews and the Old Testament… Manuscripts that are over 1,000 years apart show fidelity to each other. As the church came into existence, God used the church to preserve His word. It was this “commonly used” text that was the basis for the King James Version (and its predecessor versions).
– In the 1800s, textual criticism was developed as a science, and was extended to the Bible. In addition, some other manuscripts were found that were older. The Bible was approached as similar ancient texts, and a critical version was developed. This has been the basis for most of the modern Bibles. IFB churches generally reject the critical text and the Bibles made from it for various reasons.
About the IFB division: there is a group within the IFB (represented by Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger) that say, in effect, that no original language is needed; that the Bible wasn’t preserved, so God “re-inspired” it in the KJV. This group tends to be very vocal, and are often the ones that get picked on sites like SFL.
The position I outlined earlier (the KJV being a translation of what God had preserved) is supported by very scholarly and intelligent men.
One thing I have to remember is that if a person knows Christ personally them he/she is a Brother/Sister In Christ and I am COMMANDED by Jesus to love him/her even if he/she can find theological reasons for refusing to love me back. Sounds good in theory, doesn’t it? but sometimes difficult to put into practice. But it is not an option.