The influence of the 'new' IFB's.

[BALAAM]

Something to Ponder:

John MacArthur, John Piper, David Platt, Todd Friel (Wretched Radio) are extremely critical of seeker sensitive megachuches and megachurch pastors Craig Groeschel/Keith Craft/Heath Mooneyham/Mark Driscol/Rick Warren/Carl Lentz/Brian Houston/Perry Noble/Steven Furtick and the founder of the seeker sensitive megachurh movement Robert Schuller (whom Jack Hyles held a strong hatred for).

Famous IFB pastors evangelists Jack Hyles/Jack Schaap/Larry Brown/Tony Hutson/Jack Trieber are extremely critical of the men mentioned above PLUS they are highly critical of MacArthur/Piper/Friel etc.

So who's right at the end of the day?

As long as they like Alvin Martinez, who cares??

 

[Bob H]

There is a growing number of (mostly) younger IFB pastors and churches that have resisted the influence and traditions of past IFB leaders and are making their own way.
It might just save this movement.

http://www.ideaday.net

They might be IB's but I doubt they are F's. But that just me

 

[TheRealJonStewart]

There is a growing number of (mostly) younger IFB pastors and churches that have resisted the influence and traditions of past IFB leaders and are making their own way.
It might just save this movement.

http://www.ideaday.net

They might be IB's but I doubt they are F's. But that just me

Explain this. They seem to be fundamental in their doctrine.

 

[AlvinMartinezVoice]

Popular IFB evangelist/comedian Larry Brown puts Rick Warren and other seeker sensitive churches on full blast. Another famous comedian/evangelist Tony Hutson isn't fond of Warren either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjd8G__rt_4

 

[TheRealJonStewart]

Popular IFB evangelist/comedian Larry Brown puts Rick Warren and other seeker sensitive churches on full blast. Another famous comedian/evangelist Tony Hutson isn't fond of Warren either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjd8G__rt_4

Still don't know who Tony Hutson is.

 

[Bob H]

There is a growing number of (mostly) younger IFB pastors and churches that have resisted the influence and traditions of past IFB leaders and are making their own way.
It might just save this movement.

http://www.ideaday.net

They might be IB's but I doubt they are F's. But that just me

Explain this. They seem to be fundamental in their doctrine.

Ockenga was fundamental in doctrine but not a fundamentalist.

 

[Twisted]

Ockenga was fundamental in doctrine but not a fundamentalist.

A profound statement and very true.

The "fundamentalists" that started BIOLA (as an example) are rolling in their graves.

IFB churches, as a whole, dare not preach the same as that group as membership would flee.

These "new"  or "neo" IFB'ers are happy with the world in their churches.

 

[Twisted]

Still don't know who Tony Hutson is.

http://middletnbaptist.com/

Heard him once at Jack Treiber's conference.  What a blowhard!

His claim to fame is he is Curtis Hutson's son.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

There is a growing number of (mostly) younger IFB pastors and churches that have resisted the influence and traditions of past IFB leaders and are making their own way.
It might just save this movement.

http://www.ideaday.net

They might be IB's but I doubt they are F's. But that just me

I guess it would depend on how you define fundamental.

 

[Ransom]

Something to Ponder:

There was a day when the FFF's trolls were actually funny, instead of just repeating the same joke ad nauseam.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

There is a growing number of (mostly) younger IFB pastors and churches that have resisted the influence and traditions of past IFB leaders and are making their own way.
It might just save this movement.

http://www.ideaday.net

They might be IB's but I doubt they are F's. But that just me

Explain this. They seem to be fundamental in their doctrine.

Ockenga was fundamental in doctrine but not a fundamentalist.

If you want to go back to Fosdick, Lyman Stewart and the publishing of The Fundamentals, they are indeed fundamentalists by technical definition.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Ockenga was fundamental in doctrine but not a fundamentalist.

A profound statement and very true.

The "fundamentalists" that started BIOLA (as an example) are rolling in their graves.

IFB churches, as a whole, dare not preach the same as that group as membership would flee.
These "new"  or "neo" IFB'ers are happy with the world in their churches.

The men who fought in the Fundamentalist - Modernist controversy would not be called a fundamentalist by the IFB world today. They lacked all of the new made up essential 'doctrines'.  :
What does it mean to 'have the world in their churches'?
Is that like having the Dixie Chicks in your car? 

 

[Bob H]

There is a growing number of (mostly) younger IFB pastors and churches that have resisted the influence and traditions of past IFB leaders and are making their own way.
It might just save this movement.

http://www.ideaday.net

They might be IB's but I doubt they are F's. But that just me

Explain this. They seem to be fundamental in their doctrine.

Ockenga was fundamental in doctrine but not a fundamentalist.

If you want to go back to Fosdick, Lyman Stewart and the publishing of The Fundamentals, they are indeed fundamentalists by technical definition.

I didn't need to go back that far. I went to the late 40's where the word "fundamentalist" was discarded by Ockenga and his crowd the and the majority of baptist followed him. The "younger" crowd you mentioned aren't heading to a new place {unless I misread}. One thing one can learn from church history is that though the names may change the battles are the same.

 

[Bob H]

His claim to fame is he is Curtis Hutson's son.

You learn sumpton' new every............................... once in a while.

 

[TheRealJonStewart]

There is a growing number of (mostly) younger IFB pastors and churches that have resisted the influence and traditions of past IFB leaders and are making their own way.
It might just save this movement.

http://www.ideaday.net

They might be IB's but I doubt they are F's. But that just me

Explain this. They seem to be fundamental in their doctrine.

Ockenga was fundamental in doctrine but not a fundamentalist.

*cough* strawme... *cough*

Are we seriously comparing the fundamentalist-liberal issue to the pants-no/pants issue?

 

[BALAAM]

Ockenga was fundamental in doctrine but not a fundamentalist.

A profound statement and very true.

The "fundamentalists" that started BIOLA (as an example) are rolling in their graves.

IFB churches, as a whole, dare not preach the same as that group as membership would flee.
These "new"  or "neo" IFB'ers are happy with the world in their churches.

The men who fought in the Fundamentalist - Modernist controversy would not be called a fundamentalist by the IFB world today. They lacked all of the new made up essential 'doctrines'.  :
What does it mean to 'have the world in their churches'?
Is that like having the Dixie Chicks in your car? 

'The world' and 'worldly' are like the junk drawer we all have in our homes. If there is an item in our home without a particular place it goes in the junk drawer. Whenever there is something that someone else does that we don't like and can't pinpoint why, we call it 'worldly'.

 

[Walt]

I'm not sure they seek to redefine or lead an IFB movement. I've never read they intended such. They have simply rejected the tenets of the other 2 groups and have gone their own way.

Ahhh.... now I understand. I thought, by your title, that was the case. 

Sorry.
They self identify as IFB, but aren't actively seeking to redefine the terms. I know what (little) I know from my acquaintance with one of the men who helps organize the idea days.

So they're IFB? Meaning they are independent from one another, so why are we concerned? It's their choice.

Independent doesn't mean that we don't care if they are right or wrong; it means that we acknowledge that we don't have the authority to make them act as we wish.

So instead they lash out at each other, decrying whatever bug-a-boo of disagreement they have, and proclaim the other side to have descended into the "pit of hell" to come up with the horrible subject of disagreement. And they wonder why there is so little respect for their methodology.

I agree; it's one thing to disagree with another man's position; it is a  different thing to try to destroy him or his work.

 

[Bob H]

There is a growing number of (mostly) younger IFB pastors and churches that have resisted the influence and traditions of past IFB leaders and are making their own way.
It might just save this movement.

http://www.ideaday.net

They might be IB's but I doubt they are F's. But that just me

Explain this. They seem to be fundamental in their doctrine.

Ockenga was fundamental in doctrine but not a fundamentalist.

*cough* strawme... *cough*

Are we seriously comparing the fundamentalist-liberal issue to the pants-no/pants issue?

I wasn't but apparently you were. I'm not sure where that would fit. Who knew? I would suggest you go post to the real JonStewart or study up on some church history. You should know reading is your friend.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

There is a growing number of (mostly) younger IFB pastors and churches that have resisted the influence and traditions of past IFB leaders and are making their own way.
It might just save this movement.

http://www.ideaday.net

They might be IB's but I doubt they are F's. But that just me

Explain this. They seem to be fundamental in their doctrine.

Ockenga was fundamental in doctrine but not a fundamentalist.

If you want to go back to Fosdick, Lyman Stewart and the publishing of The Fundamentals, they are indeed fundamentalists by technical definition.

I didn't need to go back that far. I went to the late 40's where the word "fundamentalist" was discarded by Ockenga and his crowd the and the majority of baptist followed him. The "younger" crowd you mentioned aren't heading to a new place {unless I misread}. One thing one can learn from church history is that though the names may change the battles are the same.

I agree Bob, the battles are similar. Ockenga, Fuller etc. didn't want to be called Fundamentalist because of basically 2 reasons....the cultural isolation and lack of scholarship the fundamentalists seemed to value. Looking back, neither group has been free of missteps and scandals. But, the new IFB's are, instead of fighting in open warfare, simply going their own way. They just don't believe pants on women, KJVO, wearing a tie while preaching or having a drum set in church qualify as fundamentals of the faith.

 

[TheRealJonStewart]

There is a growing number of (mostly) younger IFB pastors and churches that have resisted the influence and traditions of past IFB leaders and are making their own way.
It might just save this movement.

http://www.ideaday.net

They might be IB's but I doubt they are F's. But that just me

Explain this. They seem to be fundamental in their doctrine.

Ockenga was fundamental in doctrine but not a fundamentalist.

*cough* strawme... *cough*

Are we seriously comparing the fundamentalist-liberal issue to the pants-no/pants issue?

I wasn't but apparently you were. I'm not sure where that would fit. Who knew? I would suggest you go post to the real JonStewart or study up on some church history. You should know reading is your friend.

Shocking that you know who the real Jon Stewart is. You were the one alluding to the idea that these new IFB pastors are not fundamentalists. The reason why the ignorant would consider them not fundamentalist is because of petty differences in preferences such as pants/no-pants or music, not major doctrinal issues such as the fundamentalist/modernist controversy.