I heard for decades IFB pastors mock other Christian groups for teaching and practicing things that weren't found in the Bible, demanding that those groups show from the Bible where those things come from. It's good to see that others are doing the same to IFB preachers. But the IFB preachers' responses are not to teach the principals, but rather to mock those who ask for Scripture. I'll say it and say it and say it. If your beliefs and practices come from the Bible, you should be able to show at least the Biblical principal from which the come. On another note, it's also good to see IFB preachers at long last admitting that what the teach and practice doesn't always come from the Bible. More and more I see them preaching and supporting "tradition," which has been another point of mockery towards other groups.
whats the context that that short clip comes from? to draw any conclusion from that clip other than "the church is not perfect because you and I are in it" is stretching it
As always, the original sermon is linked in the video description. I'm not sure if you listen to many IFB preachers; but if you do, you will find that many of them have resorted to attacking people who ask for Bible reason why the preachers decide to do what they do instead of explaining the principles behind why they do what they do. This video is another example of that very thing.
@@IFBPreachers i think that it is important to note that the term "independant fundamental baptist" is literally a self governing local church that holds to the fundamentals of scripture laid out what is known as the baptist distinctives. unfortunately some less than biblical so-called pastors have bastardised that designation into "insecure pharasaical blowhards" and sadly some otherwise decent pastors have drunk the coolaid in varying degrees. i grew up with a pastor who was constantly reminding folks to search the scriptures and compare scripture with scripture to see if what was being preached was true and if the cocclusion was that it wasn't , he wanted to know about so that he could again search the scriptures and get it right. that was fantastic admonition
Another thought I had is he's right. Air-conditioned buildings aren't in the Bible. Padded pews aren't in the Bible. A car isn't in the Bible. I would agree; so that being the case, the church shouldn't teach that you have to have those things to be "right with God." A pastor can explain why those things may be beneficial in today's society, but they are not and cannot be Scripture-based teachings. Instead, he decides to use those things as a false equivalence to the entire body of IFB teaching that is not in the Bible but is still preached as though you have to do to be "right with God."
True. Not all practices that aren't mentioned in scripture are in themselves sinful. What is bad is to force people into strict bondage with a bunch of unnecessary rules that aren't in the Bible. Scripture speaks against rulers and leaders exercising lordship over people in their domain and heaping burdens on them.
Paid salaries, missionaries and missionary boards, faith-promise giving, Bible college, sunday school, private christian schools, ACE curriculum, conferences, etc. Are also not in the Bible. When will we see these things challenged from the pulpit like air conditioning and padded pews? I'd say the padded wallets of the 'men of god' have blinded them to what IS in the Bible, and the Gospel ministry they are supposed to be practicing. They are indefensible at this point, it is really time to humble themselves, repent and get right, but they won't because their table has become a snare. The fact that the padded pews are filled with goats does not even seem to trouble these 'shepherds', and if they actually preached the Gospel, those pews, and their wallets, would soon be empty.
That's funny, I can guarantee you the average layman sitting on those pews and the pastor in this video have preached the gospel to more people than you ever will. 🤷♂️
@@AP-ow5vu Nope. These men preach another Gospel, the one Paul warned about, that people who didn't have sound doctrine might well bear with. I would NEVER say that people haven't been saved hearing Scripture preached, because salvation is of the Lord, He is the one who comes to sinners and reproves them by the work of the Holy Spirit. But it's in the same way as people got saved listening to Judas, who was among the 12, but not truly saved. Salvation is God's work, and nothing for flesh to glory in as though they did it. I can guarantee you this, there are a sight more people who will NEVER even consider what these preachers say, good or bad, because of the shenanigans and bad behavior that have gone on.
I would add that it would be no credit to these 'men of God' either that the people in the pews or a layman ( are you Baptist or Catholic- Baptists only have brethren, not layman) do not witness or preach. Either they are not saved or they are taught so poorly as to be unable to, for all the Carl Hatch squeezing in the world.
@@thebasedbaptist8114 Yes. When you say "Catechism," that is incredibly broad - there have been many catechisms in the Catholic Church spanning from 100AD to today. The most used Catechism is the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you look at CCC (Cathechism of the Catholic Church) paragraphs 1996-2005, you can clearly see that it is not a "works-based salvation," it is salvation from grace and faith.
It is in the Bible that Christians should be in church. There are a lot of things that IFB forbid or require that aren’t in the Bible but going to church is actually a requirement for Christians, not in order to be saved, but because we have been and we love God and want to be around His people and worship and serve Him publicly.
Maybe if the IFB hasn’t oppressed their congregations for the last 70 years you wouldn’t be in this position. People are finally challenging “modesty” standards. People are finally challenging mandatory “tithing”. People are finally challenging “music” standards. People are finally challenging every niche belief the IFB holds to that other denominations don’t, because they aren’t biblical yet the IFB pushes them like they are. Christians today are more willing to speak out than they were in the 1950s. That is the difference. Not to mention the drastic increase in the average IQ of Americans over the last century. Logic and reason tends to contradict IFB standards, so naturally you encounter more rebellion.
So true. Folks are at a point where they are not going to blindly follow a man because he screams at them. They are at the point they are not going to silently sit by as folks are abused and then blamed for their own abuse. It's the IFB's fault if they cannot support their beliefs and practices through scripture.
I actually don't think our IQs have gone up or that we are more logical- I actually think we are dumber with more information readily available. The type of research I am able to do with my phone today would have required painstaking hours that I would not have had at that time to be able to directly source information. It is a huge blessing for us, but quite an indictment on the majority of those who should know, but don't, and won't even take the time to find out. As to more willing to speak out, I am not sure about that either, as most who do, are savagely attacked and shunned, as my own experience bears out. The abuse victims from Triebers' organization were treated viciously.
@@TheProverbsmom No, data overwhelmingly supports the average intelligence of Americans being significantly higher than a century ago. Whether the internet is to credit for that or not, is another discussion. But in general, no, Americans are most definitely smarter today than they were a hundred years ago. And that contributes to them refusing false instruction from corrupt teachers, some of which being IFB preachers.
Some of this is all true. I don't think for 1 minute that people today are "smarter" - actually the contrary. People today are gullible .. or better yet, in Bible language, they are deceived. I've been around the block with protestant denominations. You've got to dig real deep and just maybe, and that's slim to zero, can you find anybody that can explain the Gospel and how to be saved, including the "paid" guy behind the pulpit. Lest we forget, there is a period of falling away before the Lord Jesus Christ returns, and I don't think Paul or the Lord had only the IFB in mind. I have visited a number of Protestant churches and on Sundays been entertained with concerts, clowns, magic shows, song and dance troupes, motivational drivel, movies, and so-called sermons shown on the big screen tv's in church, and all that's supposed to pass for preaching? I know of local denominations where there have been sexual scandals, abuse in the Sunday school, church splits over what color the new carpet should be, and pastors who gamble, carouse, committed adultery, and even curse from the pulpit, all to the approval of the congregation. If that's "people getting smarter" then I missed the boat. Yessir, the Hyles types are in every Protestant denomination. And if rolling around the floor and jibber-jabbering like a baby is in the Bible, I'm missing that too. And if female preachers are ordained by God, I missed that one too. Let's not forget the rainbow flag that flies over Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Non-denominational, Community and other churches. Bibles are not needed in most Protestant churches I have been in, and neither are hymnals. What little Scripture is used in the 20 minute micro sermon is on the screen, any hymn that is sang is up there too, and the congregations stand and sit like a bunch of programmed robots. People are smarter??? If this wasn't so serious, I'd think the guy that typed that was just joking. But it is serious. In just the time it took to type my rebuttal, how many people were dragged into Hell ?
I would say people have more education and available information today than they ever have, and it has been shown that IQ points have been on an upward trend for the past century, at least in America. We may measure the increase in IQ as intelligence or folks being smarter, but all those measurements are based on who we define intelligence or "smarts." There are some debatable reasons why IQs have increased, and what can't be shown is whether or not people have more sense because of an increase in IQ. When it comes to spiritual things, two thing are happening at once. On one hand, there is a great falling away that is taking place all across the spectrum of Christendom. On the other hand, those who are saved are waking up to the deceptions that have been and are being perpetrated in the pulpit and seem more willing to speak up about them. Growing up in the IFB, I can say for decades people were intimidated into silence. They were additionally coaxed into loyalty that prevented them from speaking out. No one was to say anything negative about the man of God. You were only to speak those things that were "lovely and of good report." Stories were even told about those who died because they contradicted or disobeyed the pastor. I remember a church I attended in the '90s had a sign up by the ladies' bathroom that read, "If it's negative, it's gossip." You were instructed never to read anything that might cast a doubt in your mind, and furthermore, you were to stand against those who would criticize the pastor and the church. All of that creates a culture of silence and complicity. The pastor could say the most outlandish things in the pulpit, and those in the pew were expected to nod their heads up and down like a bobble head and "Amen" the pastor. But interestingly, once outside the four walls of the church, people would live differently than what the pastor taught. I know of folks that would go out of town to watch movies in a theater or so the wife could wear pants while out on a date with her husband. There was a superficial culture of conformity created where folks would obey in sight of others, but disobey once they were far enough away from the church property.
I would say it varies somewhat because IFB pastors tend to preach their pet peeves. But several common themes would be certain dress standards; not singing anything at church that isn't in their hymn book; a strong emphasis on Old Testament teachings and practices; the culture of the unaccountable, untouchable man of God; a strong belief that conformity equals spirituality; the teaching of "not being right with God" if you do or don't do certain things (i.e., "if you delay obeying this particular thing that I'm talking about right now, you're not right with God"); and loyalty to the man of God and to the church even over the Bible, to name a few I can think of off the top of my head. I'll give you a personal experience. I was under a pastor who preached quite strongly against women wearing any type of garment that resembled pants, basically anything that had divided legs, as opposed to skirts. He had a daughter, and when winter came along, he had to jump through hoops to try and explain or justify why his daughter would wear leggings under her skirt or wear a snow suit, as those things certainly violated his preaching. But if you would hear him preach about women's dress, you would know doubt think that leggings under skirts and snow suits with divided legs were horrible things for women to wear. But somehow, they weren't for his daughter, and he was going to be able to use the Bible to show you how. That's one example of the silliness that comes from dogmatic preaching that is caught up in traditions instead of focusing on what the Bible teaches.
@@IFBPreachers Thanks for your reply! I would agree with most of that and I would be interested in what Old Testament teachings and practices you are talking about, Tithing? Funny enough it is me becoming more conservative that has had me running afoul of the IFB not more liberal. Questioning the alter call since it isn't in the Bible. Wondering why we allow unmarried couples with kids into communion but not the man who has wine with his meals or why we can then complain about the liberal churches allowing LGBT members to take communion when we also allow open unrepentant sinners into communion but keep out those who violate our extra biblical tradition. Me and my wife are currently talking over everything we see in the Baptist tradition and there is an eerie resemblance between the IFB and the Roman Catholic church. a lot of which you listed but include the Unquestionable man of God, extra biblical practices which you must hold to or you are lost, no salvation outside the church, the sermon being a "message" from God which is treated like scripture, the claim there is an unbroken line of Baptist churches going back to John the Baptist, and more. It's quite strange to me since on paper they are opposites. What do you think about that comparison?
@@DrGero15 There does seem to be a similar cultural mindset between the IFB and Catholicism. The Catholic Church did similar things with adopting certain Old Testament traditions. The Catholics just chose different ones to focus on, namely having priests and feasts and such things. The IFB Old Testament traditions revolve around dress standards; their thoughts about the man of God (touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm); laws such as requiring two witnesses to entertain the thought of investigating impropriety; the laws surrounding sexual assault victims; tithing; and a strange desire to wield political power into a Christian state, which Jesus spoke against the disciples doing, to name a few.
@@IFBPreachers I would agree and add that they think they are able to do prophecy, not like a Pentecostal, but close to it. I know many people who write the pastors sermon points in the margins and refer to that as the definitive interpretation of the passage, ala ex cathedra. They are coming across as a weird blend of Catholics and Pentecostals in my area. "God told me 5 minute ago to change my message and preach this, also this is the very word of God and if you don't agree with my interpretation (James 2:1-9 is really about the poor people complaining too much and if they noticed they were given bad seats it is because the poor aren't right with God. This is an actual sermon a pastor here gave which he then twisted around to questioning everyone's salvation/alter call), you are a heretic and were never a Christian. Mind the Lord and come to the alter (confession) to get back right with the Lord." It is causing me and my wife no end of grief and it is impossible to unsee it now. We will read a text and then the Man Of God will explain how it isn't what it plainly says and everyone amens it. On this note your channel is very helpful and is helping our discernment process. Have you heard the idea that Baptists aren't protestants? Well most IFB are entirely detached from church history and my wife had an interesting thought. The Roman Catholic Church started going off the rails at around ~400AD and the Baptist church is also about 400 years old now and is oddly similar. Basicity the idea is that we are inventing Catholicism again. We are in the beginning stages of clericalism and there is a growing divide between the Men of God and the laity and the Men of God/Anointed of God are starting to declare Dogma that isn't in the Bible and must be believed to be "right with God" Large parts of it are also incoherent. EG, I was told growing up that Calvinism is evil but wasn't told what is it. Now I know what it is and I hear IFB preaching to come to the alter and pray for God to save your unbelieving family against their free will. Is that not Calvinistic?
I actually heard two sermons this week where the preacher used the, "Baptists aren't Protestants," line, but neither of them did anything more than make an appeal to authority by way of quoting some historical figure like Spurgeon who claims there was an unbroken line back to the Baptists. Not to disparage Spurgeon, but an appeal to authority isn't evidence or proof of such. The preacher would also throw about some names of groups that some claim to be in the lineage of Baptists but not mention anything about the history, timeline, or beliefs of those groups. In reality, if we were to look at the beliefs of those groups compared to IFB, the IFB would probably consider those groups heretical. I've noticed Baptist preachers like to parrot those lines because they've heard others say them, but I would wager most have not actually studied those claims to verify if they are true. They also like to tie Baptists back to Anabaptists. If you read Anabaptist history, you will find some similarities in faith and practice; but again, there are quite a few things that Anabaptists hold to that Baptists do not and vice versa. From my own reading and historical study, it would seem Baptists as we know them now really originated as one of the non-conformist groups against the Church of England, adopting some doctrines of Anabaptists with practices of Congregationalists. That would make them more along the lines of "children of Protestants" more than mainline Protestants, if we could call them that. The IFB of today is acting like Paul the Apostle was preaching in a suit and tie and going to church Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night while running buses to pick up children. As far as the IFB running its course is concerned, I've noticed what you are saying. All movements tend to rise and fall on the leadership of the movement, and all movements abhor a leadership vacuum. The IFB really began in the early to mid 1900s as a group that was closely tied to fundamental Presbyterians and Methodists. You can see the influence of men like Bob Jones Sr., who was not a Baptist. I know of other men personally who were fundamental who came out of the Presbyterian and Methodist faiths who started Bible churches that call themselves "Baptistic" in faith. The start of the IFB can be traced to the mid 1900s by a man named J. Frank Norris. He was the leader, and people patterned themselves after him. He was an influence on men like Jack Hyles, who would pretty much become the granddaddy of the modern-day IFB, called by many the "Baptist pope." These men had a huge influence into what the IFB is today; but since the death of Jack Hyles, there has been no strong IFB leader. I think there are a couple of men that I've been watching who are trying to influence fundamentalism like he did, but there are none with the influence that he had. That being said, it seems there are four very different IFB courses running right now. One is the IFB church that is moving away from historical IFB practices and becoming more like the non-denominational/evangelical churches. Many of them are even removing the Baptist name. Second, there are those who are trying to maintain the IFB of J. Frank Norris and Jack Hyles, men like Tony Hutson, Allen Domelle, Bob Gray, Greg Neal, and others. Third, there is the New IFB that is trying to replace the IFB. They hold to the Jack Hyles fundamentalism in standards and proselytizing, but they have changed some doctrines in the area of replacement theology and the rapture, etc. The last course are the few that weren't heavily influenced by Jack Hyles but don't to lose what they see as the Biblical beliefs and standards. Because they are so independent, they tend to have music that differs a little from the norm of an IFB church and associations with churches that aren't so Hyles' minded. I was at First Baptist Church Hammond when Jack Hyles died and when Schaap replaced him, and since then, I've been in two of those four types of churches, the second type and the fourth type. I have found that even those who aren't heavily influenced by Jack Hyles have the same cultural and authority issues. I have also been in Bible churches, and have found that some of them seem more along the lines of acceptable than IFB churches.
I think this is a conversation that is important to have when it comes to what is going on with the culture of the IFB, and I'll start with what I hope would be a point of agreement. I believe that you and I would both agree that not everyone asks questions for the same reason. For example, the Pharisees would ask Jesus questions, but it was for the purpose of trying to trap Him. The lawyer asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?" in order to justify himself. And there are those today who, as Jack Trieber said, are critical of everything that the church and pastor do; and I think we could agree that a good majority of those would be people who are trying to live contrary to the Scripture. I do agree with Jack Trieber in that regard and with his criticism of those who would constantly stand in opposition of God and the Bible. That being said, he then uses that line of thought to attack and mock what could be an honest question, that being, "Where's Bible for that?" That question, "Where's Bible for that?" or, "Where is that in the Bible?" should be the question we ask anyone who makes a claim about how a person should believe and act. I think we would agree we would use that question for those in other religious groups, i.e., Catholic, JW, Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc. It stands to reason that question should be on the minds of IFB folks as well. The way he addresses the question isn't to show how we ascertain Biblical principles that are not necessarily "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not," but rather to mock with, "Show me padded pews and air conditioned buildings in the Bible. Show me cars in the Bible." Now, I highly doubt anyone is questioning those things, and that's the point. He knows no one is questioning those things. They are questioning other things, so the response to the question becomes one of deflection. That comes across as rather than Jack Trieber wanting to deal with what's being questioned, we are to take his word over the Bible. This is a trend that I have seen more and more being preached by IFB pastors. When I grew up in the IFB, the line was, "The Bible is the final authority of all matters of faith and practice." It seems now more and more IFB preachers are preaching, "The Bible and IFB tradition are the final authority of all matters of faith and practice." And this happens in all movements once they have been around long enough to see splinter groups arise from those groups. This line of reasoning has been used by the Catholics against the Protestants. It has been used by the Church of England against the dissenters. It's been used by splinter groups against other splinter groups. And now that the IFB has been around for about 70 or so years, and they are seeing the fruits of their movement splinter away, they are using the same line in order to try to keep what they have. So, while I do agree that the critic will use anything to justify himself, there is also the flip side which is the pastor will also use anything to justify his own view; and the view of the pastor then becomes the final authority of faith and practice in the church.
I heard for decades IFB pastors mock other Christian groups for teaching and practicing things that weren't found in the Bible, demanding that those groups show from the Bible where those things come from. It's good to see that others are doing the same to IFB preachers. But the IFB preachers' responses are not to teach the principals, but rather to mock those who ask for Scripture. I'll say it and say it and say it. If your beliefs and practices come from the Bible, you should be able to show at least the Biblical principal from which the come.
On another note, it's also good to see IFB preachers at long last admitting that what the teach and practice doesn't always come from the Bible. More and more I see them preaching and supporting "tradition," which has been another point of mockery towards other groups.
whats the context that that short clip comes from? to draw any conclusion from that clip other than "the church is not perfect because you and I are in it" is stretching it
As always, the original sermon is linked in the video description. I'm not sure if you listen to many IFB preachers; but if you do, you will find that many of them have resorted to attacking people who ask for Bible reason why the preachers decide to do what they do instead of explaining the principles behind why they do what they do. This video is another example of that very thing.
@@IFBPreachers i tend to gravitate toward expository preaching not ranting
@@donalexander4083 Agree with you there.
@@IFBPreachers i think that it is important to note that the term "independant fundamental baptist" is literally a self governing local church that holds to the fundamentals of scripture laid out what is known as the baptist distinctives. unfortunately some less than biblical so-called pastors have bastardised that designation into "insecure pharasaical blowhards" and sadly some otherwise decent pastors have drunk the coolaid in varying degrees.
i grew up with a pastor who was constantly reminding folks to search the scriptures and compare scripture with scripture to see if what was being preached was true and if the cocclusion was that it wasn't , he wanted to know about so that he could again search the scriptures and get it right.
that was fantastic admonition
AMEN MAN OF GOD!!!!
Another thought I had is he's right. Air-conditioned buildings aren't in the Bible. Padded pews aren't in the Bible. A car isn't in the Bible. I would agree; so that being the case, the church shouldn't teach that you have to have those things to be "right with God." A pastor can explain why those things may be beneficial in today's society, but they are not and cannot be Scripture-based teachings. Instead, he decides to use those things as a false equivalence to the entire body of IFB teaching that is not in the Bible but is still preached as though you have to do to be "right with God."
True. Not all practices that aren't mentioned in scripture are in themselves sinful. What is bad is to force people into strict bondage with a bunch of unnecessary rules that aren't in the Bible. Scripture speaks against rulers and leaders exercising lordship over people in their domain and heaping burdens on them.
Man, implying that because you are asking for Biblical proof for practices, you might not actually be a real Christian???
Paid salaries, missionaries and missionary boards, faith-promise giving, Bible college, sunday school, private christian schools, ACE curriculum, conferences, etc. Are also not in the Bible. When will we see these things challenged from the pulpit like air conditioning and padded pews? I'd say the padded wallets of the 'men of god' have blinded them to what IS in the Bible, and the Gospel ministry they are supposed to be practicing. They are indefensible at this point, it is really time to humble themselves, repent and get right, but they won't because their table has become a snare. The fact that the padded pews are filled with goats does not even seem to trouble these 'shepherds', and if they actually preached the Gospel, those pews, and their wallets, would soon be empty.
That's funny, I can guarantee you the average layman sitting on those pews and the pastor in this video have preached the gospel to more people than you ever will. 🤷♂️
@@AP-ow5vu Nope. These men preach another Gospel, the one Paul warned about, that people who didn't have sound doctrine might well bear with. I would NEVER say that people haven't been saved hearing Scripture preached, because salvation is of the Lord, He is the one who comes to sinners and reproves them by the work of the Holy Spirit. But it's in the same way as people got saved listening to Judas, who was among the 12, but not truly saved. Salvation is God's work, and nothing for flesh to glory in as though they did it. I can guarantee you this, there are a sight more people who will NEVER even consider what these preachers say, good or bad, because of the shenanigans and bad behavior that have gone on.
I would add that it would be no credit to these 'men of God' either that the people in the pews or a layman ( are you Baptist or Catholic- Baptists only have brethren, not layman) do not witness or preach. Either they are not saved or they are taught so poorly as to be unable to, for all the Carl Hatch squeezing in the world.
@@AP-ow5vu Bet they havent preached more then Mormons and JWs
@@mercinc2926 Mormans and JW's don't preach the gospel, they just go around recruiting people to join their cult.
Amen! Good preaching Pastor Trieber!
The quintessential IFB screaming. I went from IFB to Catholic and the difference is night and day!
IFB aren’t perfect, but at least they have the right gospel. RCC teaches a hardcore works-based salvation, among other heresies.
@@thebasedbaptist8114 I say this respectfully, but your conception of the Roman Catholic Church is based on misconceptions.
@@icxcarnie Can you please expound? I was raised Catholic and read the Catechism. Is that not official Catholic doctrine?
@@thebasedbaptist8114 Yes. When you say "Catechism," that is incredibly broad - there have been many catechisms in the Catholic Church spanning from 100AD to today. The most used Catechism is the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you look at CCC (Cathechism of the Catholic Church) paragraphs 1996-2005, you can clearly see that it is not a "works-based salvation," it is salvation from grace and faith.
It is in the Bible that Christians should be in church. There are a lot of things that IFB forbid or require that aren’t in the Bible but going to church is actually a requirement for Christians, not in order to be saved, but because we have been and we love God and want to be around His people and worship and serve Him publicly.
Hebrews 10:25
Maybe if the IFB hasn’t oppressed their congregations for the last 70 years you wouldn’t be in this position.
People are finally challenging “modesty” standards. People are finally challenging mandatory “tithing”. People are finally challenging “music” standards. People are finally challenging every niche belief the IFB holds to that other denominations don’t, because they aren’t biblical yet the IFB pushes them like they are.
Christians today are more willing to speak out than they were in the 1950s. That is the difference. Not to mention the drastic increase in the average IQ of Americans over the last century. Logic and reason tends to contradict IFB standards, so naturally you encounter more rebellion.
So true. Folks are at a point where they are not going to blindly follow a man because he screams at them. They are at the point they are not going to silently sit by as folks are abused and then blamed for their own abuse. It's the IFB's fault if they cannot support their beliefs and practices through scripture.
I actually don't think our IQs have gone up or that we are more logical- I actually think we are dumber with more information readily available. The type of research I am able to do with my phone today would have required painstaking hours that I would not have had at that time to be able to directly source information. It is a huge blessing for us, but quite an indictment on the majority of those who should know, but don't, and won't even take the time to find out. As to more willing to speak out, I am not sure about that either, as most who do, are savagely attacked and shunned, as my own experience bears out. The abuse victims from Triebers' organization were treated viciously.
@@TheProverbsmom No, data overwhelmingly supports the average intelligence of Americans being significantly higher than a century ago. Whether the internet is to credit for that or not, is another discussion. But in general, no, Americans are most definitely smarter today than they were a hundred years ago. And that contributes to them refusing false instruction from corrupt teachers, some of which being IFB preachers.
Some of this is all true. I don't think for 1 minute that people today are "smarter" - actually the contrary.
People today are gullible .. or better yet, in Bible language, they are deceived. I've been around the block with protestant denominations. You've got to dig real deep and just maybe, and that's slim to zero, can you find anybody that can explain the Gospel and how to be saved, including the "paid" guy behind the pulpit.
Lest we forget, there is a period of falling away before the Lord Jesus Christ returns, and I don't think Paul or the Lord had only the IFB in mind.
I have visited a number of Protestant churches and on Sundays been entertained with concerts, clowns, magic shows, song and dance troupes, motivational drivel, movies, and so-called sermons shown on the big screen tv's in church, and all that's supposed to pass for preaching?
I know of local denominations where there have been sexual scandals, abuse in the Sunday school, church splits over what color the new carpet should be, and pastors who gamble, carouse, committed adultery, and even curse from the pulpit, all to the approval of the congregation.
If that's "people getting smarter" then I missed the boat.
Yessir, the Hyles types are in every Protestant denomination. And if rolling around the floor and jibber-jabbering like a baby is in the Bible, I'm missing that too.
And if female preachers are ordained by God, I missed that one too. Let's not forget the rainbow flag that flies over Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Non-denominational, Community and other churches.
Bibles are not needed in most Protestant churches I have been in, and neither are hymnals. What little Scripture is used in the 20 minute micro sermon is on the screen, any hymn that is sang is up there too, and the congregations stand and sit like a bunch of programmed robots.
People are smarter??? If this wasn't so serious, I'd think the guy that typed that was just joking. But it is serious. In just the time it took to type my rebuttal, how many people were dragged into Hell ?
I would say people have more education and available information today than they ever have, and it has been shown that IQ points have been on an upward trend for the past century, at least in America. We may measure the increase in IQ as intelligence or folks being smarter, but all those measurements are based on who we define intelligence or "smarts." There are some debatable reasons why IQs have increased, and what can't be shown is whether or not people have more sense because of an increase in IQ.
When it comes to spiritual things, two thing are happening at once. On one hand, there is a great falling away that is taking place all across the spectrum of Christendom. On the other hand, those who are saved are waking up to the deceptions that have been and are being perpetrated in the pulpit and seem more willing to speak up about them.
Growing up in the IFB, I can say for decades people were intimidated into silence. They were additionally coaxed into loyalty that prevented them from speaking out. No one was to say anything negative about the man of God. You were only to speak those things that were "lovely and of good report." Stories were even told about those who died because they contradicted or disobeyed the pastor. I remember a church I attended in the '90s had a sign up by the ladies' bathroom that read, "If it's negative, it's gossip." You were instructed never to read anything that might cast a doubt in your mind, and furthermore, you were to stand against those who would criticize the pastor and the church.
All of that creates a culture of silence and complicity. The pastor could say the most outlandish things in the pulpit, and those in the pew were expected to nod their heads up and down like a bobble head and "Amen" the pastor. But interestingly, once outside the four walls of the church, people would live differently than what the pastor taught. I know of folks that would go out of town to watch movies in a theater or so the wife could wear pants while out on a date with her husband. There was a superficial culture of conformity created where folks would obey in sight of others, but disobey once they were far enough away from the church property.
What, in your opinion, are the unbiblical teachings should be questioned and abandoned?
I would say it varies somewhat because IFB pastors tend to preach their pet peeves. But several common themes would be certain dress standards; not singing anything at church that isn't in their hymn book; a strong emphasis on Old Testament teachings and practices; the culture of the unaccountable, untouchable man of God; a strong belief that conformity equals spirituality; the teaching of "not being right with God" if you do or don't do certain things (i.e., "if you delay obeying this particular thing that I'm talking about right now, you're not right with God"); and loyalty to the man of God and to the church even over the Bible, to name a few I can think of off the top of my head.
I'll give you a personal experience. I was under a pastor who preached quite strongly against women wearing any type of garment that resembled pants, basically anything that had divided legs, as opposed to skirts. He had a daughter, and when winter came along, he had to jump through hoops to try and explain or justify why his daughter would wear leggings under her skirt or wear a snow suit, as those things certainly violated his preaching. But if you would hear him preach about women's dress, you would know doubt think that leggings under skirts and snow suits with divided legs were horrible things for women to wear. But somehow, they weren't for his daughter, and he was going to be able to use the Bible to show you how.
That's one example of the silliness that comes from dogmatic preaching that is caught up in traditions instead of focusing on what the Bible teaches.
@@IFBPreachers Thanks for your reply! I would agree with most of that and I would be interested in what Old Testament teachings and practices you are talking about, Tithing?
Funny enough it is me becoming more conservative that has had me running afoul of the IFB not more liberal. Questioning the alter call since it isn't in the Bible. Wondering why we allow unmarried couples with kids into communion but not the man who has wine with his meals or why we can then complain about the liberal churches allowing LGBT members to take communion when we also allow open unrepentant sinners into communion but keep out those who violate our extra biblical tradition.
Me and my wife are currently talking over everything we see in the Baptist tradition and there is an eerie resemblance between the IFB and the Roman Catholic church. a lot of which you listed but include the Unquestionable man of God, extra biblical practices which you must hold to or you are lost, no salvation outside the church, the sermon being a "message" from God which is treated like scripture, the claim there is an unbroken line of Baptist churches going back to John the Baptist, and more. It's quite strange to me since on paper they are opposites. What do you think about that comparison?
@@DrGero15 There does seem to be a similar cultural mindset between the IFB and Catholicism. The Catholic Church did similar things with adopting certain Old Testament traditions. The Catholics just chose different ones to focus on, namely having priests and feasts and such things.
The IFB Old Testament traditions revolve around dress standards; their thoughts about the man of God (touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm); laws such as requiring two witnesses to entertain the thought of investigating impropriety; the laws surrounding sexual assault victims; tithing; and a strange desire to wield political power into a Christian state, which Jesus spoke against the disciples doing, to name a few.
@@IFBPreachers I would agree and add that they think they are able to do prophecy, not like a Pentecostal, but close to it. I know many people who write the pastors sermon points in the margins and refer to that as the definitive interpretation of the passage, ala ex cathedra.
They are coming across as a weird blend of Catholics and Pentecostals in my area. "God told me 5 minute ago to change my message and preach this, also this is the very word of God and if you don't agree with my interpretation (James 2:1-9 is really about the poor people complaining too much and if they noticed they were given bad seats it is because the poor aren't right with God. This is an actual sermon a pastor here gave which he then twisted around to questioning everyone's salvation/alter call), you are a heretic and were never a Christian. Mind the Lord and come to the alter (confession) to get back right with the Lord."
It is causing me and my wife no end of grief and it is impossible to unsee it now. We will read a text and then the Man Of God will explain how it isn't what it plainly says and everyone amens it. On this note your channel is very helpful and is helping our discernment process.
Have you heard the idea that Baptists aren't protestants? Well most IFB are entirely detached from church history and my wife had an interesting thought. The Roman Catholic Church started going off the rails at around ~400AD and the Baptist church is also about 400 years old now and is oddly similar. Basicity the idea is that we are inventing Catholicism again. We are in the beginning stages of clericalism and there is a growing divide between the Men of God and the laity and the Men of God/Anointed of God are starting to declare Dogma that isn't in the Bible and must be believed to be "right with God"
Large parts of it are also incoherent. EG, I was told growing up that Calvinism is evil but wasn't told what is it. Now I know what it is and I hear IFB preaching to come to the alter and pray for God to save your unbelieving family against their free will. Is that not Calvinistic?
I actually heard two sermons this week where the preacher used the, "Baptists aren't Protestants," line, but neither of them did anything more than make an appeal to authority by way of quoting some historical figure like Spurgeon who claims there was an unbroken line back to the Baptists. Not to disparage Spurgeon, but an appeal to authority isn't evidence or proof of such. The preacher would also throw about some names of groups that some claim to be in the lineage of Baptists but not mention anything about the history, timeline, or beliefs of those groups. In reality, if we were to look at the beliefs of those groups compared to IFB, the IFB would probably consider those groups heretical. I've noticed Baptist preachers like to parrot those lines because they've heard others say them, but I would wager most have not actually studied those claims to verify if they are true. They also like to tie Baptists back to Anabaptists. If you read Anabaptist history, you will find some similarities in faith and practice; but again, there are quite a few things that Anabaptists hold to that Baptists do not and vice versa.
From my own reading and historical study, it would seem Baptists as we know them now really originated as one of the non-conformist groups against the Church of England, adopting some doctrines of Anabaptists with practices of Congregationalists. That would make them more along the lines of "children of Protestants" more than mainline Protestants, if we could call them that. The IFB of today is acting like Paul the Apostle was preaching in a suit and tie and going to church Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night while running buses to pick up children.
As far as the IFB running its course is concerned, I've noticed what you are saying. All movements tend to rise and fall on the leadership of the movement, and all movements abhor a leadership vacuum. The IFB really began in the early to mid 1900s as a group that was closely tied to fundamental Presbyterians and Methodists. You can see the influence of men like Bob Jones Sr., who was not a Baptist. I know of other men personally who were fundamental who came out of the Presbyterian and Methodist faiths who started Bible churches that call themselves "Baptistic" in faith.
The start of the IFB can be traced to the mid 1900s by a man named J. Frank Norris. He was the leader, and people patterned themselves after him. He was an influence on men like Jack Hyles, who would pretty much become the granddaddy of the modern-day IFB, called by many the "Baptist pope." These men had a huge influence into what the IFB is today; but since the death of Jack Hyles, there has been no strong IFB leader. I think there are a couple of men that I've been watching who are trying to influence fundamentalism like he did, but there are none with the influence that he had.
That being said, it seems there are four very different IFB courses running right now. One is the IFB church that is moving away from historical IFB practices and becoming more like the non-denominational/evangelical churches. Many of them are even removing the Baptist name.
Second, there are those who are trying to maintain the IFB of J. Frank Norris and Jack Hyles, men like Tony Hutson, Allen Domelle, Bob Gray, Greg Neal, and others. Third, there is the New IFB that is trying to replace the IFB. They hold to the Jack Hyles fundamentalism in standards and proselytizing, but they have changed some doctrines in the area of replacement theology and the rapture, etc.
The last course are the few that weren't heavily influenced by Jack Hyles but don't to lose what they see as the Biblical beliefs and standards. Because they are so independent, they tend to have music that differs a little from the norm of an IFB church and associations with churches that aren't so Hyles' minded. I was at First Baptist Church Hammond when Jack Hyles died and when Schaap replaced him, and since then, I've been in two of those four types of churches, the second type and the fourth type. I have found that even those who aren't heavily influenced by Jack Hyles have the same cultural and authority issues. I have also been in Bible churches, and have found that some of them seem more along the lines of acceptable than IFB churches.
I don’t see nothing really to terribly wrong with what he said. Tbh.
I think this is a conversation that is important to have when it comes to what is going on with the culture of the IFB, and I'll start with what I hope would be a point of agreement.
I believe that you and I would both agree that not everyone asks questions for the same reason. For example, the Pharisees would ask Jesus questions, but it was for the purpose of trying to trap Him. The lawyer asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?" in order to justify himself. And there are those today who, as Jack Trieber said, are critical of everything that the church and pastor do; and I think we could agree that a good majority of those would be people who are trying to live contrary to the Scripture. I do agree with Jack Trieber in that regard and with his criticism of those who would constantly stand in opposition of God and the Bible.
That being said, he then uses that line of thought to attack and mock what could be an honest question, that being, "Where's Bible for that?" That question, "Where's Bible for that?" or, "Where is that in the Bible?" should be the question we ask anyone who makes a claim about how a person should believe and act. I think we would agree we would use that question for those in other religious groups, i.e., Catholic, JW, Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc. It stands to reason that question should be on the minds of IFB folks as well.
The way he addresses the question isn't to show how we ascertain Biblical principles that are not necessarily "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not," but rather to mock with, "Show me padded pews and air conditioned buildings in the Bible. Show me cars in the Bible." Now, I highly doubt anyone is questioning those things, and that's the point. He knows no one is questioning those things. They are questioning other things, so the response to the question becomes one of deflection. That comes across as rather than Jack Trieber wanting to deal with what's being questioned, we are to take his word over the Bible.
This is a trend that I have seen more and more being preached by IFB pastors. When I grew up in the IFB, the line was, "The Bible is the final authority of all matters of faith and practice." It seems now more and more IFB preachers are preaching, "The Bible and IFB tradition are the final authority of all matters of faith and practice." And this happens in all movements once they have been around long enough to see splinter groups arise from those groups. This line of reasoning has been used by the Catholics against the Protestants. It has been used by the Church of England against the dissenters. It's been used by splinter groups against other splinter groups. And now that the IFB has been around for about 70 or so years, and they are seeing the fruits of their movement splinter away, they are using the same line in order to try to keep what they have.
So, while I do agree that the critic will use anything to justify himself, there is also the flip side which is the pastor will also use anything to justify his own view; and the view of the pastor then becomes the final authority of faith and practice in the church.
AMEN MAN OF GOD!!!!