วีดีโอ

There are no 2nd or 3rd degree issues in the IFB.

Although I still believe the KJV is the most accurate translation( being based on the most reliable manuscripts), I definitely identify with everything being said here. So glad we left the IFB, but it’s strange how, years later, you realize how “in your head” the preaching has stuck… and I mean erroneous stuff. Another thing I’d like to point out is how the pastors love criticizing overweight people. It’s one thing to encourage better health. It’s another to be rude. God bless!

I repented from being KJV only, God can use any version to save a soul. My eyes were opened when i saw King James had certain words removed and his translators used earlier English versions when translating the KJV. People are waking up to whats really going on in the church. Great interview 😊

Do you even Know what the gospel is

Greatest place i've ever been to

I go to a great independent Baptist church.We preach the gospel

🤍

This is awful that you guys went through this. The fortunate or unfortunate thing is that each church is different. I currently attend an IFB church, i have to tell people all the time not like jack hyles, or steven anderson, or peter ruckman.

I use to go on visitation night with another Independent Baptist brother and ill be honest with you all i loved doing those visitations

Number #1 Disagreement i have BIG TIME WITH Independent Baptist is the KJV ONLY view 😝 😝 😝

Where's THE FRUIT ??? WHAT? well how much fruit or what kind of fruit of salvation right? I use to be like that bout 3 years ago but that sounds like Calvinism 101 and I disagree with ALL 5 POINTS OF CALVINISM!!!!!

I'm a BAPTIST mostly Independent and some Southern but if any IFB church tells anyone that they're not saved all because they don't go to THAT CHURCH "GET AWAY FROM EM ASAP" sounds like NIFB started by Stephen Anderson 😮

I see where monasteries came from

Why don't you explain the slavery,genocide,rape,incest,cannibalism,human and animal sacrifice. Or the killing of people who are gay,women who are not virgins before marriage,children who disobey parents,people who work the sabbath etc, etc , etc. All right there in your "GOOD BOOK".

Thank you

You used the word escape , like its a prison .....i was raised ifb and never had no problem saying good bye ....and never was hated for going to another church ....the word escape must bring the number of viewers....

Believing for your complete and total healing 🙏🏾 NO more migraines 🙌🏾

The problem with your IFB Church, is the new fake ones, and adding fake twisted BS. Like pastors don’t answer to no one, your projecting catholic pope BS. And the correct KJV is the right bible . You can’t change the scripture to make people’s feelings not get hurt…

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT use the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. Some will use the phrase “head covering” to claim that the passage refers to it when this phrase is not found in the verses within 1st Corinthians 11:1-16. One can find them separately but not together to mean a synthetic covering. Therefore, it would be disingenuous to say that it does. The passage includes the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions, then why would Paul say in verse 7… “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue. Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold. This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking/attractive) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. The answer of which should obviously be no. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look unattractive and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair while praying looks especially uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). The reason is that they are intermingling the word head in verse 3 that refers to authority with the other word “head” that is being used to refer to the literal head of the human body. One can easily dismiss their interpretation because it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband and that the context includes the idea of hair and the shaving and cutting thereof. So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair. Therefore there are no two coverings just one which Paul refers to as being covered which he means to be covered in long hair.

Reconstruction of Christian faith simply means deconstruction from what toxic church’s teach. Not who Jesus is.

I’ve always been a bit weary of baptists.

Thank you for that song. It was perfect for this podcast. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Oh girl. Take another look You are a priest if you are in Christ. Their are ZERO named pastors in the Bible The Holy Spirit is the one who gives gifts. Not men. None of the gifts are gendered. God never designed women to go to war … did he design any human for this? Umm no.

Please explain this: Gods all powerful and all loving entity But if you don't believe you go to hell, eternally, if he loved everyone and is all powerful wouldn't he have the power to make them believe. If he doesn't have that power then hes not not all powerful, i If he did and chose not to then he's not all loving

Greetings from Uruguay!!

Thanks for what your doing, you are amazing and your voice is very soothing.

Super cool video dude!

excellent upload I think it is Nathen as well love ur channel thanks n blessings Carmen

I left the IFB after 20 plus years and I was the lead Trustee and worked in various ministries. The main reason I left was unresolved Conflict with a (non repenting) elder.. but was the result of the unbiblical structure of Top Down authoritarian power of the Pastor. The bible talks about a plurality of leadership, but the Jack Hyles model sets up for abuse. I don't think all IFB's are bad.. if you have a good pastor that is a servant and not ruling as Lord it would be great. I loved the Door to Door but I didn't do the high pressure method, rather a very polite offering -no pressure and using myself as an example and letting them know we Love them and we are always available to share the Gospel with them.

Esau’s wives are: Adah daughter of Elon the Hittite , Basemath daughter of Ismael, and Aholibamah daughter of Anah daughter of Zibeon the Hivite

My least favorite tea is: the kind that makes you go to sleep. I like tea because I love eating honey, and it gives me an excuse to eat, honey. I also enjoy lemon with my tea. Esau/Edom slew all the people of Seir that lived in Mt. Seir and Esau ruled their land. Seir’s father? maybe Hor where the tribe got its name the Horites. Seir means satyr so they were satyrs like Pan, and the fallen watcher angel Azazel the goat demon who resided in the wilderness near Paran in Arabia. This was a very cool story. I was very interested in Hadad because his name Baal Hadad is equated with Zeus and I’m trying to figure out who the Greek gods are based on if they are based on people. Baal/ Zeus was a stumbling block to the Israelites. Balaam was a prophet from Edom and also has the Baal in his name just spelled a little different. Some of these Edomites are magicians. I can start with Laban who practiced magic he was Beor father of Balaam. Balaam is the father of Jannes and Jambres the magicians of pharaoh Thutmose VI/ Amenhotep III who mimicked a couple of Moses’ miracles.

How can you take the bible seriously without a KJV? Jesus is the Word of God. And then they change the word. What the?

When you try to have a conversation with the pastor. And you have an English bible, and he wants to go to the Greek, or a concordance. Then this is a massive red flag. I would just leave.

Who was the church? I would like to know. You sound like you are out of Pastor Andersons stable. If that were true then it would be surprising for you to recommend James white. I would not have put up with that crap for anywhere near as long as you did. Glad to hear you got out. Even if it were Pastor A's church. Pastor A is on the right track with salvation, with the Romans road, and that stuff. But he has not proven to me through his preaching that he is saved. And he is wrong about a bunch of stuff. I recommend this: M't:6:33: But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Obey them that have the rule over you. What? were you a deacon? or in a working compacity for the church, or employed with them in any way? Why would the pastor be saying that? You cannot understand that verse in Hebrews if you don't compare it to Romans chapter 13. Obey them that have the rule over you, is relative to the law and to the gospel. Otherwise, you can get into some crazy stuff.

I saw 666 subscriber you got.... I make it 667!!! ❤

I went through an almost exact experience as you. I was deep into it. I was a pianist for some of Jack Hyles’ crusades back in the day. My parents’ bookshelves were heavy with books by Hyles, Roloff, KJV-Only authors, etc. Almost all of them dealt the “hot” IFB issues of the day: contemporary Christian music, Bible translations, standards of dress and hair styles, and a hundred other gospel-distracting issues. It was gut-wrenching leaving all that, because you leave people that you truly love in your ministry. Hindsight really makes it clear that “by their fruit you will know them.” The lies, the manipulation, the guilt-tripping, and slander says it all. The book authors who were living immoral lives, while laying all these “tradition” burdens on their flocks. Thanks for sharing your story. It helps to heal everyone else who’s going or has gone through the same thing. God bless you!

"With estimates" he mean like great flood number is unknown in bible but if research is 20 million peoples on earth in this moment

Instead of asking if Polygeny is a sin, I wish our people would start asking themselves why does God allow Polygeny. Why is it lawful? Do you not understand that the laws of God are the constitution and bill of rights for the Kingdom of Israel? This is what they govern themselves by. This is what God govern them by. He has never allowed them to sin! Neither has he had laws of sin written by his righteousness. No one is forced to marry or not marry. You have the free will to marry how you please. God will judge all things by his word/law. But please stop saying women who choose to marry one man are sinning. Or a man who has more than one wife is sinning. Stop trying to seperate Christ from the father. They are 1. That is either ignorant or evil to think or say such a thing! You are calling God the minister of sin! Please Stop judging by your religion and see God's righteousness. God allows Polygeny because he is against sin. He gave Polygeny/marital law to put away all manner of fornication (1 Corinthians 6:18). To put away whoredom (using women as one does a whore) from among the children of God (Deuteronomy 23:17). To put away all manner of sexual immorality (Exodus 22, Leviticus 21, & Deuteronomy 22). To keep confusion from among his people by keeping a man's children and the women thereof under one headship (1 Timothy 5:8, Proverbs 22:6 Deuteronomy 11:16-19, & 1 Timothy 3:5). To keep a woman that desires to wear a man's masculinity, sexuality, and headship from among the children of God/vice versa (Proverbs31:3, Deuteronomy 22:5, Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:24-32, 1 Corinthians 11:3), and the list goes on family. I ask you all, when did that change? The law is righteous and will always be righteous. Your unrighteousness doesn't change that. In fact, it's why you must die. God made marriage the rule of Law in all the earth (Genesis,1 , 2, 9, Psalm 24:1, etc). Polygeny is marriage, and marriage is honorable in all (Hebrews 13:4). Even if you were taken as a servant wife God still honors you (Exodus 20:10 & Exodus 21:7-10). A restriction given to a Bishop or Deacon is not an implication of sin. Just as there is law specific to women and some specific to men. Their is law specific to a King and some for a prophet. If you do not hold these positions/work in your lifetime, these laws do not apply to you. Concerning Deuteronomy 17:14-20 this is law pertaining to Kings, not to all men. We live in a nation where most men live by its culture, customs, and laws instead of the word/law of God (Matthew 4:4, Matthew 15:3, Acts 5:29, etc..). What they practice here is fornication and is ungodly (Revelation 21:18). Polygeny can never be a sin, because by God's decree: sin is the disobedience to the laws of God (1 John 3:4). They cannot grasp this because they do not understand the Kingdom (Matthew 13:11) because they have no respect/honor for the laws of God. For the constitution, the bills if rights, the civil and moral laws given to Israel. Even the penal codes thereof. They only know a democracy, a republic, communism, socialism, etc... What they can vote in and out. Some man-made stuff. They do not know or honor the Kingdom of God is the government setup over heaven and earth ( Isaiah 9:9, Matthew 3:2, Luke 10:9, Matthew 7:24-25). They lack knowledge that all the word/decrees of the King is law and is lawful (Deuteronomy 8:3, Psalm 119:89, Matthew 24:35). They lack this understanding to be able to apply or divide the word of God rightly. As for divorce, Christ in Matthew 19 said it best: In the beginning, it wasn't so. The beginning being "Genesis." No man in the bloodline of Christ in Genesis divorced his wife or wives. God didn't give Adam another wife. Jacob endured his son laying with one of his wives and kept them both among him. Abraham was told by God to move out the bond woman and his son by God. He didn't choose to. No one ever put away their wives lawfully until the law of Moses. This is what it means when said but Moses. Before the law of Moses, divorce was never lawful for the lineage nor the children of Israel. You never see it throughout time until God allows Moses to give it. That's when it becomes lawful. This is what Christ is saying. He's dealing with divorce. It's not Christians who are confused. It's all men who do not understand that which Christ has preached throughout his whole ministry was purely the word of God. The main thing and focus of his message, is "The Kingdom" Which he mentions over a 100 times throughout his gospels. These men and women are of this world and worldly minded. Ever learning but unable to come to the truth of God (2 Timothy 3:7). Still focused on the intent of God and never moving with God into the purpose of man (Ecclesiastes 12:13 & 1 John 5:3). Allowing sin to rule the day instead of his son. Christ gives God what he intended to get out of mankind. If God could get the perfection he desires out of the children of Adam, he would not have sent another. Be wise family and let God be true & every man a liar.

Thank you for being an instrument of the Lord to explain this to us.. May the Lord bless and guide you more.

You have to realize, Paul (the author of this letter) repeatedly says that although they have the right to receive money for their work, they did not pursue this right. They did this so they would not hinder the gospel. Oh, and there is also an often ignored smoking gun in this verse. Do you see it? This verse has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with pastors or elders! This is about missionaries. Paul was not an elder or a pastor, he was a missionary. He was travelling from town to town as a missionary spreading the good news of Jesus Christ. Now, I would be the last person to argue that we should not support missionary work, but Paul here says it is ideal for a missionary to find their own work and support themselves! But we cannot deny the fact that in this context, those who proclaim the gospel get their living from the gospel is talking about people who are leaving their home town and travelling far away to share about the Christ. In other words, these are people who would, in any normal situation, have a hard time finding employment and supporting their own physical needs. Being an elder should not be a full-time position. There should be multiple elders or pastors in every church to meet the needs of the congregation. Single pastor rule is not scriptural. Full-time pastors is not scriptural.

The problem with people who leave cults is they usually just jump into new ones. This is because they don't realize the problem is them and thier thinking. Cult deception is not intellectual its emotional and psychological. Oftentimes especially in Christianity people will come out of these Christian cults and dive into new ones or sometimes into groups which aren't cults and treat them as cults. . It creates division in denominations because the people with the cultic mindset will demand others around them make this group The cult they want it to be. Often complaining about lukewarm members because they're legalistic nature is what drives them. . So cult Jumpers and cult members are usually riddled with victim mentality. Its always about blaming someone or some group or something else for all problems. There's no accountability which is another word for repentance. So if a cult member doesn't take responsibility for their involvement in the cult it never ends. The live a life believing everyone is "lukewarm" and "worldly" while they are just folks with high standards. Until there's accountability and they realize they're not victims they will never be free

That is a LIE of the SERPENT scribes - Jer 8:8, Mat 23:29-33 ALMIGHTY never commanded for them to EAT FLESH or sacrifice - Jer 7:21-24.. This is why Solomon dwelt in DARKNESS (GROOM) Solomon built that houses to EXALT HIMSELF, NOT GOD ALMIGHTY! - 1 King 8:12-13 - The bible MISTRANSLATED IT!!! BEWARE OF THE SCRIBES, they HID knowledge - Luke 11:52 and Solomon did NOT Obey GOD ALMIGHTY like His father did! 1 Kings 11:4 For it was so, when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart after other gods; and his heart was NOT LOYAL to YHVH Elohim, as was the heart of his father David. WHY did Solomon go against THE LAW OF GOD ALMIGHTY?? What kinda WISDOM did Solomon REALLY HAVE ??????? = Gen 2:17 Wonder who REALLY Offered SOLOMON ALL THOSE RICHES = Matthew 4:8-10, John 1:18, 1 John 3:6, 1 Kings 3:5 👉Deut 13:3

I was saved and raised in the IFB, and now, in my silver years, I've served as a head trustee and started several ministries, remaining a faithful servant. Yet, heartbreakingly, I recently left my IFB church. The over-control, the lack of heart beyond the cliques, and the imbalance in focus on obedience, God's will, and holiness-all essential aspects of the Christian walk-pushed me away. Yes, those are important parts of God's nature, but there must be a balance. Without emphasizing God's heart and grace, the message can become spiritually harmful, even controlling. It's not about denomination-ask yourself: Does this church follow after God's heart? Does it have that heart toward every individual, or just toward those within certain family or clerical cliques? A church is only as strong as its most overlooked member. If you see cliques forming while individuals are left out, take heed. I long to be part of a church where the focus isn't on the most visible or likable, but where the least feel like the most important. As for the KJV, I believe Bible translations are like radios tuning into the Word of God, which transcends text itself. The KJV, based on the Textus Receptus, is like a high-fidelity radio, giving me God’s Word in beautiful clarity. I also appreciate the reverence that comes from understanding the older English-it helps set God's Word apart in holiness. That said, I don't dismiss other versions of the Bible, knowing they can equally convey God's truth and power. The IFB movement is strongly focused on separation from the world, as seen in 1 Peter 2:9: 'But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.' Yet, this call to holiness must be balanced with God's grace, and not become bound by the traditions and rudiments of men (Colossians 2:8). I'm well-versed in the IFB and would be glad to answer any questions about it. Feel free to ask.

I felt this one had too long of a recap.

IFB isn't a denomination- Baptist is a denomination but I is for independent so in that you're going to have a variety of beliefs and practices

Thank you this episode 😊

Thank you for your video 🙏

Never give a demanded resignation letter. Demand to be fired.