Howdy!

[Don]

(01-09-2011 01:56 AM)steve95054 Wrote:  

(01-08-2011 06:38 PM)Don Wrote:  Yep! HAC and FBCH are considered IFBx. Gothard related pod-people are IFBx. Lester Roloff ministries are IFBx. SoTL is IFBx. Ruckman-knights (or Ruckmanites if you rather) are IFBx. Phil Kidd is IFBxxx.
These are just a few of the banner carriers and generals in the movement.
IFBx refers to those who are the IFB Weights and Measures Division departmental bureaucrats and enforcers.

Oh, then the church supernova asked about is definitely IFB-x. And I'm ex-IFB. Hm. Interesting (wait for it) turn of phrase. Bwahahahaha.

Goot-wan, mahn!

[supernova8610]

(01-09-2011 01:56 AM)steve95054 Wrote:  

(01-08-2011 06:38 PM)Don Wrote:  Yep! HAC and FBCH are considered IFBx. Gothard related pod-people are IFBx. Lester Roloff ministries are IFBx. SoTL is IFBx. Ruckman-knights (or Ruckmanites if you rather) are IFBx. Phil Kidd is IFBxxx.
These are just a few of the banner carriers and generals in the movement.
IFBx refers to those who are the IFB Weights and Measures Division departmental bureaucrats and enforcers.

Oh, then the church supernova asked about is definitely IFB-x. And I'm ex-IFB. Hm. Interesting (wait for it) turn of phrase. Bwahahahaha.

[Historian]

I'm really curious about your transition from IFB to Orthodox. If you've got the time at some point I would love to hear about that process. What differences there were to attract you, what part your understanding of Scripture played in it. Anything like that.

Anyway, welcome aboard!

[steve95054]

(01-09-2011 05:07 AM)Historian Wrote:  I'm really curious about your transition from IFB to Orthodox. If you've got the time at some point I would love to hear about that process. What differences there were to attract you, what part your understanding of Scripture played in it. Anything like that.

Anyway, welcome aboard!

Addressing the two things you mentioned....

There are, of course, a ton of differences in the outward forms, but there is an underlying current of....what's the word? Holiness? Yes. Worship? Absolutely. Depth? More than I'd ever seen before.

I can't really find the word for it. I know the phrase we use ("Holy Tradition"), but it means something completely different from the way it's used in the West, and it's really hard to put on paper.

Most "low church" Protestants (including my former self) would automatically dismiss them because of the outward form of worship. They have a "form a godliness"! They must therefore be "denying the power thereof," right?

But that was not what I found when I actually visited. I found the Gospel in them was "not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit, and with full conviction." Sure they have forms, but they have the power.

And that's what kept me coming back, in spite of some pretty heavy disagreements (initially) regarding doctrine. (There is a reason that the Catechumenate in the ancient church typically lasted three years! There's a lot to learn, and to unlearn.)

So that brings me to your second question, regarding my understanding of the Scriptures. There is a saying in Orthodoxy that pretty well sums it up: "Orthodoxy is all the Scriptures you didn't underline."

(It's also all the ones you did, FYI. )

And I suspect you'd be surprised at how many that is, even for a Bible College grad who loves and studies the Scriptures (even the little obscure books like Micah and Habbakkuk).

In the end, even for the verses I did underline, it comes down to interpretation. I became convinced (after much wrangling) that my own interpretation was, at best, not complete, and downright wrong at worst.

And I'm glad I found this out. When seen from the proper perspective, the beauty of Christ in the Scriptures is far more than I had ever suspected (and I had suspected quite a bit)!

Not only that, but when the Scriptures say something, the Orthodox don't feel the need to do theological gynmastics to get out of it. That's quite refreshing. (They do, however, like to be sure that the Scriptures actually say whatever it is you think they say. They don't just take your word for it. )

Not only was my interpretation of Scripture challenged; my understanding of the place of Scripture in the Life of the Church was also completely overturned.

This post is not the place to go into in-depth, but suffice it to say that I am no longer sola scriptura, as understood by the Protestant world at large. (I know....broad brushes and all that. But you get the point, I think.) Among the reasons for this (and not the least of which) is that the Scriptures themselves teach against it.

Now lest you think that we've thrown out the Scriptures: far from it! The great majority of each service of the Church is either directly quoted Scripture or a paraphrase of it, or an allusion to it. (Fun fact: to become a Bishop of the Church, one must have the entirety of the Psalter memorized.)

I could go on for a while, but I think I'll stop there for this reply.

Maybe we should set up a formal interview or something? Or you can just ask questions until you're done. Let me know....

[Historian]

(01-08-2011 05:27 PM)Don Wrote:  

(01-08-2011 05:03 PM)Clint Wrote:  Can anyone tell me what the "x" after IFB means?? Does it denote super-hardcoreness?

yes. it is IFB Extreme. And it is the X-games that opened our eyes to the movement and the players in it.

Nice. I LOVE it!

---

(01-09-2011 05:25 PM)steve95054 Wrote:  

(01-09-2011 05:07 AM)Historian Wrote:  I'm really curious about your transition from IFB to Orthodox. If you've got the time at some point I would love to hear about that process. What differences there were to attract you, what part your understanding of Scripture played in it. Anything like that.

Anyway, welcome aboard!

Addressing the two things you mentioned....

There are, of course, a ton of differences in the outward forms, but there is an underlying current of....what's the word? Holiness? Yes. Worship? Absolutely. Depth? More than I'd ever seen before.

I can't really find the word for it. I know the phrase we use ("Holy Tradition"), but it means something completely different from the way it's used in the West, and it's really hard to put on paper.

Most "low church" Protestants (including my former self) would automatically dismiss them because of the outward form of worship. They have a "form a godliness"! They must therefore be "denying the power thereof," right?

But that was not what I found when I actually visited. I found the Gospel in them was "not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit, and with full conviction." Sure they have forms, but they have the power.

And that's what kept me coming back, in spite of some pretty heavy disagreements (initially) regarding doctrine. (There is a reason that the Catechumenate in the ancient church typically lasted three years! There's a lot to learn, and to unlearn.)

So that brings me to your second question, regarding my understanding of the Scriptures. There is a saying in Orthodoxy that pretty well sums it up: "Orthodoxy is all the Scriptures you didn't underline."

(It's also all the ones you did, FYI. )

And I suspect you'd be surprised at how many that is, even for a Bible College grad who loves and studies the Scriptures (even the little obscure books like Micah and Habbakkuk).

In the end, even for the verses I did underline, it comes down to interpretation. I became convinced (after much wrangling) that my own interpretation was, at best, not complete, and downright wrong at worst.

And I'm glad I found this out. When seen from the proper perspective, the beauty of Christ in the Scriptures is far more than I had ever suspected (and I had suspected quite a bit)!

Not only that, but when the Scriptures say something, the Orthodox don't feel the need to do theological gynmastics to get out of it. That's quite refreshing. (They do, however, like to be sure that the Scriptures actually say whatever it is you think they say. They don't just take your word for it. )

Not only was my interpretation of Scripture challenged; my understanding of the place of Scripture in the Life of the Church was also completely overturned.

This post is not the place to go into in-depth, but suffice it to say that I am no longer sola scriptura, as understood by the Protestant world at large. (I know....broad brushes and all that. But you get the point, I think.) Among the reasons for this (and not the least of which) is that the Scriptures themselves teach against it.

Now lest you think that we've thrown out the Scriptures: far from it! The great majority of each service of the Church is either directly quoted Scripture or a paraphrase of it, or an allusion to it. (Fun fact: to become a Bishop of the Church, one must have the entirety of the Psalter memorized.)

I could go on for a while, but I think I'll stop there for this reply.

Maybe we should set up a formal interview or something? Or you can just ask questions until you're done. Let me know....

Thanks! That was a great reply, and very clear. I do have more questions, but as you said maybe this thread isn't the right place? Maybe the theology section? Anyway, if you were interested in having a discussion, and letting us know some more of your convictions, in a different thread, that'd be great.