Should I become IFB?

Hey Zig Forums,

I'm looking for a new church. Ever since I found out that the pastor at the supposedly conservative Baptist church I attended was for faggot marriage I haven't had a spiritual home to worship God in. I wasn't the only one who left, a lot of people did, and I mean a lot! Nobody knew that the pastor we had was an undercover faggot, and now I hear he has been pushing the faggot agenda in his sermons too. It's sad to see the church which I once called home, and which I thought was following the word of God, plunge so hard.

Anyway, I found out there was an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church in my town which I never even knew was there. Judging by all Andersonite and IFB memes that there are on Zig Forums (and on 4/pol/), I passed it over because, although IFB's can be pretty based, they're too much of a meme and sometimes a little too radical as in the case of Anderson. But after a while of searching, there really wasn't any better place to go to. So, with a few friends, I visited the church on a Wednesday night Bible study/service. It was very conservative. All the women there had long skirts on or dresses, no pants allowed for women. The hymns were traditional Baptist hymns, and the KJV Bible was what was used. During the greetings, everyone was very nice and open and welcoming, and the Pastor himself personally greeted me. We were asked not to tithe since we were visitors and only members could tithe.

Pretty much after that we talked with the Pastor. He asked us if we were saved, and we said yes, which he responded joyously to. He then asked us what Bible we used, I said NKJV. He then sat us down and right off the bat gave us a lecture how other Bible versions were corrupted and that the King James Version of the Bible was the only true Bible to be used. He offered us to have our own group studies after Wednesday Bible study/service and we agreed.

So, should I become apart of this church? I'll have to be baptized (again). They aren't too radical like the Andersonites. The Pastor himself even told us that he respects other faiths. But they're definitely very conservative. I hope I don't have trouble getting into the KJV though as I still mainly read from the NKJV as of now in my personal time. Is IFB the right choice in a church?

Attached: anderson2.png (472x320, 268.28K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/user/orthodoxstephen/videos
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

No thats autistic

Why are they wanting to rebaptize you? Seems odd since you are just moving over from another Baptist church.

Yes

Attached: 23222F3D-A715-40A3-BBC7-624A826D6501.jpeg (400x763 42.61 KB, 275.39K)

As long as you're saved (OSAS), and have been baptized after you got saved, then there is no need to be baptized again (Acts 8:36-38). Some Baptist churches have goofy terms of church membership, but if they are KJV only and preach the right salvation then it sounds like a good church to attend.

Tbh OP, im a Gadolig and im looking to join an IFB Church. Let us at Zig Forums know how it goes. :)

Attached: john-the-baptist-baptizing-jesus-christ-greg-olsen-287x300.jpg (287x300, 24.73K)

BEGOME

Attached: 21125465_263215990849739_6146028929568600981_o.jpg (1280x1280, 73.34K)

Yes you should

Attached: d1dd0701-e69d-4150-b2db-cfac562cd139.jpg (1280x448, 137.73K)

“Jesus…if you give me another Indian burn, you get the hand!”
“Too late!”

Asking "Should I do/become X" on any board, no matter how Christian, is probably not your best bet.
What you should do is read through the scriptures (not with a study Bible, they tend to be biased) and church fathers while praying for God to guide your interpretation. From there you can identify which church is most in line with the original church.

Why yoke yourself to a specific church at all?

It sounds like a decent church with the right Bible. Here are the questions I always have for a church I'm considering:

1. Do you do any soulwinning? And by soulwinning, I mean knocking on doors and giving the gospel, not dumping tracts everywhere and screaming in the street. Usually if they do door to door soulwinning and use a KJV they have everything else right.
2. What is the plan of salvation? Even in "faith alone" Baptist churches, you have to be careful, because a lot of them teach that you have to repent of your sins to be saved.
3. Here's a tricky one: what is the evidence of salvation? There are a lot of pastors who say they believe in salvation by faith alone, but then turn around and say that if you don't have works, you're not saved, which is just a sneaky way of teaching works-based salavation.

You'd be surprised at how difficult it is to find a church like this in the so-called Bible Belt.

Just be sure they're not Andersonites, and always check whether the pastor is teaching according to truth.


kek

Do it brother.

Attached: UNASHAMED.webm (575x205 1.21 MB, 35.66K)

OP here, here are their doctrines on their website, what does Zig Forums think?

1. The infallibility, inerrancy, and verbal inspiration of the Bible. (II Peter 1:21, II Tim 3: 16) We hold solely to the Authorized King James Version of 1611.

2. The belief in the Trinity, one God in three persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Matt 28:19,

3. The eternal Deity of Jesus Christ. (John 3:16, Heb 13:8, Rev 1:8, Rev 1:18)

4. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ (Isa 7:14, Luke 1:27)

5. The sinless humanity of Jesus Christ. (Heb 4:15)

6. The substitutionary death of Jesus Christ. (Rom 5:6,8, I John 2:2)

7. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. (John 20: 26-28, Luke 24:39)

8. The personal, premillenial, pre tribulational second coming of Jesus Christ (Acts 1:11, I Thes 4:16-17, Rev 20)

9. Salvation by grace, through faith, without works. (Eph 2:8-9, Titus 3:5)

10. The powers of Christ’s blood to save and cleanse from sin. (Col 1:14, I Peter 1:18-19, Eph 1:7)

11. Every believer is indwelt with, and sealed by, the Holy Spirit upon receiving Christ, and that the believer is filled with the Holy Spirit for service. We believe that the Holy Spirit today bestows gifts for service upon believers, but that the sign gifts were restricted to the apostolic period. (Romans 8:9, 10:44, Eph 1:13, 4: 11-12, I Cor 13: 8-13)

12. The eternal bliss of believers in resurrection bodies. (I Cor: 15:51-57, I Thes 4:16-17)

13. The eternal damnation in hell of all those who reject Christ. (John 3:36, Rev 20:11-15)

14. The free offer of salvation, without limit to the atonement. (John 3:16, II Peter 3:9, I Tim 2:4, I John 2:2)

15. The eternal security of the believer. (John 3:16, 10:28)

16. We believe that the local church is a body of believers that meet together to worship God, to receive instruction, to observe the Christian ordinances, and to render whatever service the gospel requires; and that the local church is autonomous, directly responsible to Christ the Church’s head (Acts 2:38, 4 1-47; I Corinthians11: 17-34; Ephesians 1:1-2; 4:1l-16).

17. The Ordinances of the church are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Baptism is an act of obedience, a sign of faith, and a witness of salvation. In it, a believer in Christ follows Him by being immersed in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as a witness of the believer’s identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. There is no Saving Power in the act or the water, but it is a sign and symbol only. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial observation of that which the Savior did with His disciples on the night He was betrayed. It is in no sense a sacrifice, but is intended to commemorate His death and confirm the bond of communion of the Holy Spirit between believers and between Christ and His Church. (Matt. 28:19, Acts 10:48, Rom. 6:3, Col. 2:12, Gal. 2:16; I Cor. 11:23-29, Heb. 9:26-28, 10:12-14)

18. The Genesis account of creation, to be accepted literally, and not allegorically or figuratively. The direct creation of man in God’s own image and after his own likeness, man’s creation not being a matter of evolution or evolutionary change of species or development through interminable periods of time from lower to higher forms; the direct creation of all animal and vegetable life and God’s established law that they should bring forth only “ after their kind.” (John 1:1-4, Heb 11:3, Gen 1:1, 11, 21-27, 2:7, 21:23)

19. We believe that Satan is a person. He is the unholy god of this age, the prince of the power of the air, and the prince of this world. The Devil was a murderer from the beginning. He is a liar and the father of lies. There is absolutely no truth in him. He is the enemy of God and man and the author of all the power of darkness. He is a deceiver and blinds the minds of men to the end that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ may not dawn upon them. He is destined to the judgment of an eternal justice in the lake of fire. (John 8:44; John 16:11; Ephesians 2:2; II Corinthians 4:4; Revelation 20:10)

20. The command to evangelize all nations. (Acts 1:8, Matt 28: 19-20)

21. The one body of Christ consisting of all believers regardless of color, race, or standing. (I Cor 12:13, Col 1:18, Gal 3:28)

22. The imminent and personal return of the Lord Jesus Christ to take his Body unto Himself before the tribulation and to set up His kingdom on the earth after the tribulation. (I Thes 4:16-17, Rev 11:15)

You can tell they're bullshit just from this. They most likely use the 1769 revision, the original 1611 text isn't widely available. They don't know their own Bible.

Only churches who hold to all the doctrines of the IFB have valid baptism.

The church fathers were heretics tbh. And stop calling them "fathers" since "one is your Father, which is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9)

They're definitely not. They believe in the rapture so that's one sign they're not. They're also ardently against the faggot agenda and anything having to do with faggots but they don't believe fags should be put to death or anything.


As far as I know, they don't do any formal soul winning, however members of the church are encouraged to soul win within their family and neighborhood. In fact I'd say 90% of the people there were evangelized by the original members, either as family or friends or people in the same neighborhood.

Attached: 5710.gif (448x380, 126.92K)

That's just sad.

Attached: A17DA104-8D0C-44DB-AF14-2987C47716DB.png (1200x600, 386.94K)

All of those "Baptist memes" aren't original, rather derivative of other works. I'm sensing a pattern …

It's upside down. How can you not understand this?
It's like you are telling a joke wrong and you are proud about it.

Baptists sure love their reddit memes

There's no need to be upset about memes.

Attached: 151.jpg (182x200, 7.82K)

Seems I've struck a chord.

Attached: 1471279643583.png (638x647, 651.52K)

Why cant all the denominations come together in the name of making fun of united protestants?

Attached: lostcomposure.jpg (960x720, 92.88K)

It's all in good fun.

Attached: 5858f25e84b6251b38f382d977e4aacbc770d5e5d9c0f0eea75157e915d84b59.jpg (962x642, 123.33K)

Such stale banter.

Attached: caf5d1ecc18692c5e7a6fbad2de41084af4e014dfa63c385d7a727eeec6fc39b.jpeg (450x308, 36.48K)

Any more dumb questions?

Attached: Losers.jpg (400x358 118.11 KB, 169.2K)

Don't bother, really. If you're going for Protestantism, go for Lutheranism or semi-independent congregations with a common creed. Also, don't use the word 'based', it's really, really epin reddit meme tier

Don't being a Andersonite, your gonna go to hell with his flawed theology when it comes to being saved, and he just flaunts himself like Joesph Smith did claiming to be a modern prophet and he just wants attention for being edgy, become a Traditionalist Catholic because thats what Jesus intended.

So what do baptists do about translations of that version? Is it not good enough because its in French or German? Are there any French or German baptists?
#18 made me chuckle, have fun with that one OP.

Why not become Mennonite?

Attached: anabaptists-catholics.jpg (800x600, 128.94K)

Become Eastern Catholic. You get the organization of the Early Church, unlike Orthodox, and the rites of the Early Church, unlike Roman Catholics.

Attached: BegomEasdernGadolig.jpeg (1280x1280, 80.94K)

This really bugs me. Why do you consider it a bad thing to be a radical christian? To love Jesus and the Bible radically? Is there really such a thing as "too radical" when it comes to being a christian? I really don't think there is. Pastor Anderson preaches nothing but the Bible and he preaches the whole Bible, he's literally the most biblical preacher out there.

Attached: steven-anderson-disgust.jpg (633x320, 24.13K)

With all due respect to Pastor Anderson, but he doesn't follow Ephesians 2:15

Elaborate.

...

verse 32 really seems to be saying physical death. But either way Lev 20:13 clearly js physically dying and sodomites being abominations is also in Jude and 2 Peter 2

Absolutely debunked, my brother. Don't build your house on a false foundation.

Do you believe a perfect English translation exists?

Translation in general comes with trade-offs, due to the localized cultural concepts behind the words and phrases of each language. For example, if I say, "Two in the bag is worth one in the bush", anybody in the Anglosphere will understand the metaphor and be able to apply the idea to whatever context the phrase is used in. If you were to translate the phrase literally to another language, its meaning might not be clear. In these circumstances, translations are reworded so that the original concept is communicated, rather than a literal sentence about bags and bushes. This is (one of) the reasons why there are multiple translations of the Bible; some are literal translations, some are conceptual. So no, there are no "perfect" translations into English, because there is no one-way to translate. This is why you should use multiple translations, and use a concordance like Strong's when discerning verses with significant translation variance.

Got it backwards: "one in the bag is worth two in the bush".

James White got absolutely roasted my dude

Can't tell if you're joking. Dr. White is an expert on the subject and categorically shut Anderson down on every point. Anderson meanwhile squirmed away from particulars whenever he was cornered, and also demonstrated that he had no idea what circular reasoning was (literally asked what it meant during the interview, lmao). It was a bloodbath; I suggest you ask a college educated adult to watch it with you and give you the play-by-play.

…

Dr. White isn't a real Christian though. He's arguing against Christianity since Christians use the KJV. Anyone who doesn't consider the KJV to be the only word of God isn't Christian.

Circular reasoning: using the conclusion as a premise. You need to prove why the KJV is the only word of God. It is a strange claim to make, given that its a translation and not the original text.

but the KJV says it's the word of God; and God does not lie!

…ust forget it wasn't originally delivered 1,500 years before the KJV, it's the catholics trying to trick you, ok

Also just forget that 2 timothy 3:16 states that all scripture is given by the inspiration of God and that God said in 1 peter 1:25 He would preserve His word forever.

does "all scripture" apply to that which was given to us by the Catholic Church, or does it refer to the Elizabethan translation 1,500 years later

I wasn't able to make heads nor tails of anything you wrote. It seems like you might've conflated circular logic with faith (!!) and also put words in my mouth with the redtext, but I can't be sure. Maybe bring this post to a native English speaker and have them edit it for clarity, no offense.

circular logic based on the KJV is not faith based though; in fact, it's against the faith, because this scripture was given to us by the Catholic Church

you want to take the Scriptures delivered to us through Christ's Church, and instead say the translation of a translation is what God intended!

that is anti-Christ, for what came first? Christ's Church or the Gospel?

You are asking the wrong question, as God came first and hence His words also would have been so.

First of all, I wasn't attacking you at all. I was purely addressing what you wrote. I'm not trying to be a grammar nazi; it was simply unintelligible. Secondly, I find it ironic that you are accusing people of fallacies when you yourself just said that faith is based on one.

What exactly is it you fail to understand? You weren't directly adressing any of my points. All you were doing was pointing out I redtexted what I assumed to be your points. Then you proceeded to state that you don't believe me to be a native english speaker and that you don't understand something about my post which you don't explicitly ask or point out. So what is it you don't understand about the post?
And? Anything not of faith is sin. If you actually believed and had faith you would already be aware of that.

1900 years of damned unbaptized Christians. Darn.

This poster has valid point. As there is only one baptism that matters and that's the 1 peter 3:9 one
Hence why in revelation 7:14 the saints have their robes washed. But that hasn't happened yet.
Let me repost this for clarity. As the original poster has a valid point.
>The (((church fathers))) were heretics tbh. And stop calling them "fathers" since "one is your Father, which is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9)

Woops that quote is from 1 peter 3:21 not 3:9
sage for doublepost

That is rough OP. I know that feel. Went to a great church years ago, some messianic Jew from Israel came, started falsely prophesying, named my Pastor an Apostle and started introducing all sorts of kikery in a once wonderful church. Attendees got letters in the mail begging for more money. It was a total scam. The kikes name is Kurt Landry of Kurt Landry ministries. I've been wandering since. Can't find a new home and I feel more empty by the day. I pray you find what you're looking for op

Attached: CCE23F2D-02EC-419A-B977-2FE743CE0322.jpeg (213x237, 52.6K)

you literally didn't answer the question at all. which came first, Christ's Church, or the Scripture?


"And against my Church, hell shall not prevail". Christ did not write the Holy Scriptures during His time on earth, His Apostles did through the Holy Spirit a few decades after the Crucifixion.

Are you calling Christ a liar? He had no Church, despite that He said He did?


I've already demonstrated that denying Christ's Church is denying Christ, you're calling Him a liar.


Which? The Greek or the Latin left to us by God? The Elizabethan translators weren't prophets.

>The (((church fathers))) were heretics tbh. And stop calling them "fathers" since "one is your Father, which is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9)

Christ was speaking figuratively. Otherwise, do you call your blood father, "Father"?

if you do, guess ur going to hell LUL

What is scripture? It's the written record of the words of God. Hence why what God says would have come first, but would be written down by men inspired by the Holy Spirit later. As in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth genesis 1:1.

The Gospels are the accounts of Christ written by His Apostles inspired by the Holy Spirit. Your very definition of scripture denies the New Testament.


…


…you're insane

...

He was talking about spiritually. I can my actually father father becayse he is my father by biology. And I call The Father father because he is spiritually my father

He was speaking figuratively, otherwise Job, Joseph, and Elisha are guilty of…using the word Father in reference to others.

or about in Acts when Stephen calls Abraham our Father? That wasn't spiritually? Or Paul when he speaks of "our Father Isaac"?

How could it not be spiritual? Or are you a Jew, and deny that Isaac and Abraham aren't Christianity's spiritual fathers?

it's all about context, something which fundamentals love to destroy

You talk about context but can't even read the whole verse…

Attached: 2 can play this game.png (1200x600, 532.5K)

Because it does not change the fact that He was speaking figuratively. Prophets in the Old Testament still used "Father"; as did the Apostles' in the New.

Otherwise, those inspired by the Holy Spirit sin, as did the Apostles' called by Him, even down to those whom call their father, father.

In short, it's a WRONG teaching. I trust those who know Christ was speaking figuratively. There is no conflation with ANY FATHER ON EARTH, with OUR TRUE FATHER IN HEAVEN. At least, not in the authentic Church you hate.

First off Jesus did not give the command until matthew 23:9. Due to romans 5 where no law is, no sin is imputed. So there was nothing wrong with them doing it until Jesus had spoken those words. Secondly the apostles /=/ the Holy Spirit. They are flesh, and they can sin. But if they claim to be speaking by the Holy Spirit, then test the prophets to see if it is true. Third, where did a apostle call a man on earth their father after matthew 23:9?

Should be

>It's sad to see the church congregation which I once called home, and which I thought was following the word of God, plunge so hard.
I see those feels and feel them. I cannot believe this is STILL going on, that evangelicals are getting dragged into all this modernist bullpucky. And willingly, too, as though, somehow Christ was never someone they knew.
I'm agog at it, frankly.

Frankly, the congregation that left should have stuck together, put up a shingle and worshipped out of shopfront like Vitamin K did, cuz clearly you had some based people around you. But, by all means, check out the IFB congregation in town, why not? Do you really think they are the debil because Vitamin K breathes?

ohffsnotthissh~tagain.
WHY, O WHY, does this HAVE to be an actual thing? I mean, by all means have an opinion, but the KJV is NOT a "clean" translation itself! The key is to be aware of the limitations and use many.

Do what now?! Why? They reject the baptism of the regular baptist church? The Spirit of God did not descend on you? What happened to the whole Baptist idea that it was symbolic of the washing away of sin? This sounds fishy to me. Are you sure they're not Orthbros in disguise? Do the leadership team all have beards?


Yeah, this is where I start to jones for better pastures. I mean, this starts to border on cultish. Or Catholic.

Yeah, because even here , they even SAY
Ah, but no user, the symbol was done incorrectly. Dafug?!


The first seven look great … then the wheels wobble with 8, but correct … and then we get to the old perennial favourite: #18
What precisely constitutes "figuratively"? Why can't they just SAY they reject 16 billion year old universes? I don't believe Adam or Eve evolved, but I still believe the universe is 16 billion years old and that stuff evolved from what God created. I don't see evolution as being in opposition to initial creation.

But, other than that, standard Biblical teaching. Except for that whole rapture thing.


What, wait … Anderson doesn't believe in the rapture? Wwwooooaaaaahhhh …. {mind-blown}


Is that meant to convince me to begome cathbro or burptist? I am genuinely unsure which you think is good, whether the "losers.jpg" isn't just six layers of irony again. Because, the baptists in that pic are the only one of the two doing it right.


How does one "follow" that verse. There's no instruction there.


Yeah.

Attached: anderson-begome.jpg (441x392, 43.36K)

I think this kind of behaviour is shameful and embarrassing.
He was right there, in the debate. If he wanted to say something then why didn't he say it there? It's like a real version of this classic.

Attached: 1297199080171.png (655x815 105.88 KB, 401.96K)

...

Not him but it seems pretty clear to me. It is not a perfect translation. That's it.

The great irony is that every time Anderson reads out of the KJV during his sermons, he will restate what he just read in modern English, and then give his interpretation, usually in the context of a sermon where he applies that interpretation to something happening in the world right now. He also excommunicates people who disagree with him, or screams at the top of his lungs during sermon. Here is the testimony of an ex-FWBC member of one such instance (starts at 22m 51s)

...

Reminder to ACTUAL Baptists in this thread to stop casting pearls.

(dub dubs of truth)

Though, if the 🅱aptists hadn't casted their pearls here on Zig Forums I would still be an unironic papist.

Attached: 2014-12-06-15.28.29.jpg (570x428, 64.54K)

I already disliked him before but this honestly makes me feel sick.

Steven Anderson claims that his style of churches were the original style of church before the Catholic Church created a universal mega-church.
Where are the bible verses that say this?

…Does triple parentheses even mean anything at this point?

Attached: 8-wFoOPa_400x400.jpg (384x384, 21.36K)

The Bible talks about different churches for example the 7 in revelation. And why would there be no epistles to The True Church Of God^tm

Yes.
Even if every single word were to be echoed, it would still mean something.
It would still remind people of the jews.

Attached: this.jpg (494x531, 155.85K)

Begome Western Rite Ordodogs

Attached: Western Rite.jpg (960x634 122.73 KB, 41.63K)

Nobody cares about your special snowflake rite, laddy.

I used to be Baptist and trust me, it sucks. No solid theology, barebones exegesis with zero regard for context, absolute hatred of church history and no sacraments. And worst of all, I only realized this after reading the Bible itself without my pastor telling me to do so and see through church history and biblical scholarship to wake up.

If you want a church, LCMS, ACNA, conservative Presbyterians, Reformed are all viable options without the stupidity of IFB

wow. what makes it more sad is that it's faith, then good works anyways.

t. Jesuit

still listening

at 39:23, anderson loses it over being called steve.
this guy is a baboon

OP here. Wow. I thought this thread died by now. Anyway, I'm getting baptized soon so I'm officially becoming apart of my local IFB congregation. I've also been getting used to reading the KJV, and I have to say, it's much better than any other so called "translation". There's so much proof that the KJV is the most perfect English translation from the inspired manuscript traditions it was translated from which God himself preserved over the centuries. Most days I read the KJV, pray, listen to Steven Anderson sermons, and on Wednesday go to Bible study and Sunday service.

1:02:12


Steve is a total joke, and completely unworthy to be a shepherd of anyone.

If you like watching videos on christianity check out Father Spyridon's talks, he's always on point and has a deep understanding of what matters

youtube.com/user/orthodoxstephen/videos

Attached: Saint_John_Apostle.jpg (820x569, 64.64K)

Sorry I'm Christian not Eastern Orthodox.

I'm a Presbyterian in thought, thus I hold to infant baptism and covenant theology, but recently I have been considering joining a local baptist church. The Presbyterians churches in my country and region are not local and are either under the 'wave'. The Baptist church says that if I honestly believe in infant baptism then they would not force me to get baptised upon membership which I really respect. The baptist appear to be the ones with the energy at the moment thus I feel drawn to them, despite some strong disagreements. They are certainly not as bad as the Catholics on this board make out sometimes ahaha

Attached: aa59b594f6a29b57ec500bdfaa2ce75cdaf4c0af15c285d22288913351a4b042.jpg (589x689, 106.67K)