Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. Brethren, Our next lesson on the local church will be in 2 Thessalonians 1:1-4 God bless you all. Alan
  3. Last week
  4. I'm sure cassava flour would be enough, although there is no coconut flavor in the dredge. The coconut flour does smell a bit coconutty, but it doesn't taste. The recipe I started with uses more cassava anyway. I like coconut, but definitely would not like it with my fish, nor would Randy. This dredge actually is for chicken, but really does work great for fish. Nice thing about it is you can add any spices you might particularly like. For the chicken, I usually add paprika to the dredge.
  5. That sounds good HC. Can it also be done with just the cassava flour? I ask because my diet has also been changed to not allow carbs., but I do not like coconut at all.
  6. I'm on my phone and can't answer in-depth...sorry. The qualifications apply to a MAN...not a child, adolescent, or teenager (in my opinion). That does away with "at any time". The qualifications also are the traits that he is publicly known by...this goes beyond what the man is now...it covers years. Why? Because of how he is known by those not only in the church...but how he is known by those who are "without". It takes a long time for a man to establish his reputation...especially by those who are "without". I know pastors who are popular in my community, but they don't meet the qualifications that God has ordained. Numerous church splits have resulted from these men...hard feelings and bitterness are the results. Many have adopted false doctrine...but they chalk it up to being persecuted...when neither they (nor the churches that elected them) held them to biblical qualifications.
  7. Jim_Alaska, Thank you for pointing out me as the offending poster. I wasn’t sure whom you were speaking of. Going forward I will refrain from using the terms Pharisaical, Phariseism, or any other such terms. I apologize for my rude and contemptible speech. To all, I will attempt to change my approach, and hopefully have a better discussion on this subject of divorce and or a second marriage being a sin, as well as the effects it has on the qualifications of the office of a bishop. I have listed a few questions below, and am seeking the teachings of all that care to answer them. If you feel that some are connected, then please feel free to combine them. Reading other posts on this same subject, I understand that not everyone’s teaching will be 100% the exact same. But please be exhaustive as much as possible to teach me why you see the answers in the light you present it in. 1) When does the accountability of the bishop for ALL of the qualifications go into effect? · Please list beside each trait at what point in his life does he become disqualified for not being: 1) blameless (Example) – The moment he broke any law (God’s or man’s). 2) the husband of one wife 3) vigilant 4) sober 5) of good behaviour 6) given to hospitality 7) apt to teach 8 ) Not given to wine 9) no striker 10) not greedy of filthy lucre 11) but patient 12) not a brawler 13) not covetous 14) One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity 15) Not a novice 16) have a good report of them which are without 2) What is the meaning of "husband of one wife"? As I see it there are 2 interpretations 1) A man married to one woman his entire life. 2) A man having only one wife while married (i.e. Anti-polygamy). Are there more interpretations and why is the one chosen the correct interpretation? 3) Are there any exceptions (i.e. Death, Desertion, Adultery) for a man that divorced and married another woman to still meet the qualifications? 4) If there are no exceptions, and he is disqualified, what fields of ministry or offices is he allowed to partake in, and what is he allowed to do in said ministries or offices, and what scriptures are used to qualify him for use in those ministries or offices? 5) Was Judas Iscariot a bishop, and which local church gave him his bishoprick? (Acts 1:20) 6) Please clarify the way Christ loving the church means that a man’s marriage is to be a carbon copy or an earthly representation of Christ being married to one church. To me there are very distinct differences between the church and a physical wife. The church does not die, wives do. The church is a city, wives are human beings. The church is spotless, pure, and a virgin, wives are not. A man’s wife has power over her husband’s body; how does that apply to the church having power over Christ’s body? I am just not seeing this being what Paul was saying, but rather that he (the husband) is to love (Feel tender affection for somebody) his wife (the woman to whom a man is married) just as Christ does the church and GIVE (To present or deliver something that he or she owns to another person) himself (his body) for her. I also believe this is why Paul made his statements in Eph. 5:28-29 & 1 Cor 7:4-5. If I am wrong, please show me where my interpretation is off course. 7) Does Matt 5:31-32 and Matt 19:9 apply to the born again believer in the church age? If the answer is yes, please also explain how Matt 5:22-30 applies to the believer today. 8) What is the meaning of 1 Cor 7:27-28? 9) What did Paul mean when he said “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any”? (1Cor 6:12) “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.”? (1 Cor 10:23) And does this scripture also cross reference to Gal. 5:13?
  8. Fixing pan-fried cod tonight. I'll dredge it in egg, coconut and cassava flours. It fries up to be crispy and is tasty and flaky. Also veggies. The paleo bread Randy eats is in the oven baking. I think dinner will warm him up tonight - it's raining and cool out right now.
  9. Most everything that majority of baptist churches do is weak and unbiblical. The millennials that are seeking the truth are hard pressed to find it. The constant altar calls where people get saved "again" every week are laborious to endure. They are not trained up with doctrine, and are sent off to bible college to learn "the deeper things" of the bible, rather than sitting through doctrine packed sermons all their life and knowing the bible well before they become an adult. The churches are more interested in giving a few bucks to far off missionaries than actually training people up in ministering the gospel to people, so the young people don't really have anything of substance to do for God, so there is very little meaning in what they have done. People know when their churches are dead and dying. The heads get more and more grey, they have nothing of substance to do other than greeting the same people every week and occasionally making a show of emotion at an unbiblical altar while they pray in front of everyone. On top of all of that, the independent churches no longer have a captive audience. The millennials are going online and finding preaching which goes against one of the seemingly foundational IFB doctrines, which is the Jews being God's chosen people. When they look at modern day Israel and the Jews, they are finding it difficult to believe that those are God's people. When someone teaches them a clear doctrine from the bible that the Jews are of the bondwoman, and not the free, they start to get it. If they decide that they are not God's people, then it is hard for them to sit in church and listen to the preaching, which often times is a central theme of the churches. When they hear scriptures that say you can't have the Father without the Son, they lose respect for those who teach that the Jews have the Father, but not the Son. I'm sure that we are seeing a great falling away as well, so we should get ready for tribulation, which is another point of contention.
  10. Have some version of the Romans Road as a guideline, especially at first, but know and understand what you are there to say. Realize that it will take time to be fluent in presenting the gospel, and in being able to be interrupted, yet keep your message fluid amidst interruptions. Try to bring them back to what you have predetermined to be a good order of information when they get you off track with side issues, and do all things as gently as possible. It is ok to be direct when necessary. If a mormon tells you that they are good to go, let them know that they are not, and that hell is hot. "Some save with fear". Purposely develop an understanding of what to say to different people. Give some thought, study, and prayer to what you are doing. Most importantly of all points is to make sure that you are not delivering a false gospel of repentance from sin for salvation. God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way, and God repented of the evil that he said that he would do unto them, and he did it not. Don't make them think that they have to feel bad about their sin to be saved, because the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Give the gospel of being saved by grace through faith, and without works. There is no Billy Baalam Graham changed life gospel that gets anyone saved. Make sure that they understand "everlasting", "eternal", "shall not come into condemnation", and "shall never die". That is the gift of God that they must receive, not a temporary salvation based on your changed life or repentance of sins. Faith is the evidence of things unseen. You can't see their salvation, nor should their salvation produce evidence to you, for them to be saved. Inviting Jesus into their heart is not biblical, so don't use it. Use "believe in thy heart", and "call on the name of the Lord". Make sure that they understand and believe that once they become a child of God, there is nothing that can separate them from the love of God, and although they may be a son or daughter that gets chastened, God will never leave them nor forsake them. Finally, and very importantly, show them the bible verses from the KJV for what you are telling them, because faith commeth by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
  11. 1 Thessalonians 2:14, "Followers of Other Good Churches" "For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews." 1 Thessalonians 2:14 The apostle Paul had previously shown how the churches, which were regional, or local, in Judaea, a region of Israel, had suffered intense persecution by their own countrymen. The Thessalonian saints willingly followed the examples of the churches, or assemblies, of the saints in Judaea in following Christ. And, because of their faith in following Christ, and His doctrines, the Thessalonian church was persecuted by their own countrymen. The apostle Paul is very clear in his meaning. The churches in Judaea were separate congregations of believers from the churches in Thessalonica. The two regions, or local areas, were not connected, or governed, in any manner, with any ecclesiastical hierarchy, bishop, Pope, Priest, denomination, or other governmental body. The church, as a body of believers, in Thessalonica willingly made the decision to follow the example of the good churches in Judaea. A true New Testament church does not have any ecclesiastical body over them. All New Testament churches, or assemblies, are independent and make their own decisions in church matters.
  12. John, Your meaning was clear the first time your made it. SAB76 miss-used your clear meaning. Your second meaning is also very clear and worth repeating. Alan
  13. Sentences within a paragraph carry on the same thought. New Paragraphs carry on a related but new thought. 1st paragraph is about Bishops being a reflection of Christ and that their infidelity or loyalty towards Christ and how that carries over to their own wives. Second is about the "Abandonment" argument being a sign of a hard heart and a reason many lack power. The third is my general opinion that GENERAL disregard for the qualification (not just divorce) is the reason our churches lack the power of God. The qualifications for the OFFICE are there for a reason and all I am saying is that churches should strive to get and hold men to the Highest standard of those qualifications that they can for the sanctity of the OFFICE and not make excuses for getting minimally and questionably qualified men for the OFFICE. To make this about us "not forgiving men" or about "how well" God used men in other capacities who were not qualified for this office, is wrong, and are false arguments.
  14. OK, no mincing words. This reply is aimed at SAB76. The moderators have been fielding complaints from other members about your offensive manner in this thread. Divorce or some other doctrine is not the subject of this particular reply. Offensive language is the subject. Calling other Christians "Pharisaical" is offensive and not Christ like. I gave a warning back a few replies about this sort of thing. Once again you have chosen to ignore a moderator's warning in your reply that was worded in the following manner: "And I will keep stating what I have since the start. This is Pharisaical." If you had read the board rules posted by the owner of this board you would have seen the following: 8. We will not allow the following a) Bashing of other message boards. b) Bashing of your pastor or church. ** Online Baptist is a place for fellowship, disagreements you may have with others should not be handled here. c) Members that come just to argue doctrine instead of fellowship. This is your last warning; if you can participate in discussions civilly and fellowship in a Christian manner, you are welcome here. If you choose to continue as you have, your time here will have come to an end.
  15. Wanted to include the whole quote so that I do not misquote or misinterpret. As you can see the context, the entire topic of the first 2 paragraphs is about DIVORCE. So if it was a general statement on the last paragraph, then I am not seeing it stated as such, and was only left to assume it was a statement referring back to it's preceding paragraphs degrading men that have been divorced. Perhaps, Mr Young can clarify, as I have asked him to do in a previous post.
  16. Woah there big boy......The only place I remember John saying anything to do with "low calibre" is: And yet you accuse him of saying: You need to be careful with your accusations, for that is not what John said, nor even what he implied. In fact, almost exactly the opposite. He didn't say they were defiling the church, and he didn't restrict the reason to only divorce - in fact he didn't even designate divorce specifically. And yet you go on a rant about all the other problems with churches today saying that John was ignoring those and suggesting it was ALL ABOUT DIVORCE. In fact, John's statement includes, not excludes all of these things, because it is a general statement. This is very close to a false accusation.
  17. Ok, I must have misunderstood your post that claimed I was being offensive and juvenile with my accusations into meaning that I was wrong. As far as the sin issue that is being addressed, It was brought to my attention that Matt. 5 & 19 and I suppose the same cross references in Mark & Luke teach that a Christian today in the church age is committing the sin of adultery when they put away their wife and marry another. With it being taught that he is married to 2 women at the same time in God's eyes. So therefore the bishop must be blameless of this sin, by being married to only one woman in his life. This seems to be the standard teaching from a lot that believe in married only once in a lifetime. And it must have been a concern or a common teaching even back in Paul's day, and so he had to preach an entire chapter on it in 1 Cor. 7, and then towards the end of it assure the people that if you marry after being loosed it was NOT a sin.
  18. John, It was your own words that claimed there were men of lower degree defiling the church, and that that lower degree was due to some personal part of their life (divorce). It wasn't because they were preaching falsehoods on the foundational doctrines, or because they were teaching another way of salvation contrary to Paul's gospel, or teaching others to believe in perverted versions of the bible. It was because they didn't live up to the misinterpreted meaning of "of one wife". It was OK that God called a murderer to free his people, or an adulterer and a murderer to be king over his people, and a brawler and striker to preach the gospel of the circumcision, and a murderer and an abetter to murder to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised, but that "sin" of divorce is just too much for God to forgive & forget to call that man to preach and teach his word. You used the terminology of higher & lower degree...And while you may claim they are forgiven...you believe and teach that their "sin" is not forgotten. And I will keep stating what I have since the start. This is Pharisaical.
  19. I didn't say you were wrong, I simply suggested a line of study for anyone who cared. It is always better for us to study for ourselves rather than accept what someone says. Does the passage speak of sin or qualifications, and what impact does that have on the subject?
  20. If you believe that I am wrong, then please give me a lesson on this passage, and its true biblical meaning. If I am mistaken about my view of the scripture, please show me where I am wrong. If you would give your commentary on this passage I will be glad to consider it, and if it is biblicaly sound, I will concede and begin teaching it as Church age doctrine. So far I am being corrected by multiple individuals, have had very few of my questions answered and, still do not have a clear and concise understanding of what the standard group belief is. I hear opinions, and get rebuked when I do not agree with them. I get brought back to Old Testament Mosaic law, and get rebuked when I do not agree with putting a saved believer of today under those laws. I ask questions, and get no answers. If it is not Pharisaical to judge other men in the ministry on their personal lives, then show me the scriptures that say so. If it is not Pharisaical to believe that there are some men that are of "lesser degree" than other men, then show me where Paul preached this. If it is not Pharisaical to stop these men of lower degree from preaching and teaching the word of God to the lost and saved, then please show me. So I am asking for you and any one else to please give me an exhaustive commentary on 1 Tim 3:2, and show me why my interpretation of "husband of one wife" is incorrect. I am particularly interested in the following: 1) What is the actual biblical meaning of "husband of one wife"? 2) Are there any exceptions for a man that divorced and married another woman? 3) If there are no exceptions, and he is disqualified what is he allowed to do in the church, mission field, etc.? 4) When do the other remaining qualifications go into effect? At birth? At seminary? At the desire? 5) And depending on when the other qualifications start, why is the one about marriage a one and done no matter when it happened in his life? 6) And lastly, where does it say that a bishop's marriage is to be an example or carbon copy of Christ's to the church? I read where every man is to love his wife as Christ does the church, and to treat her as he would his own flesh, but I am just not seeing where it says "The reason the Bishop cannot have two wives is because Christ does not have two wives. Nor does he have "one church at a time"."
  21. Now I don't have scripture to back it up, (but then neither does anyone else), but I believe maybe the fish barfed Jonah up pretty close to where he first began to run from the Lord, in Tarshish. The three days has nothing to do with the length of the journey, so much as the length of time for Jonah to repent. I just figure that since God had to give Jonah the same instruction He gave him at the first, that He may have brought him back to where he first gave the command, or as I said, where Jonah ran. But that's just my opinion.
  22. I have to say, I appreciate the honesty of those who admit they are too weak to fast. Honesty is a good thing, but it also implies you know you ought to do it, and you know it will bring your walk with Christ somewhere it has never been before. So I ask: Is it worth it to you? Do you want a better relationship? But I also warn you: like anything we do when we seek to grow in Christ, it has its inherent dangers. The last time I fasted, I fasted for a week, because I wanted to gain some wisdom and seek god's will, as well as begin to improve my work as a pastor. Shortly after starting, my wife got sick. They said it was nothing, but a few days later, she went into the emergency room and didn't leave the hospital for 5 months, severely ill, almost dying. Listening to some preaching sermons to try to gains some balance as I reeled over what was happening, a sermon by my old pastor, who himself has done serious fasting, warned that when we fast, we need to keep in mind that things may occur that seem devastating at the moment, but are happening as a response to the fasting done to grow, and that helped immensely, as I fully realized this was god's will for some reason, and that through it all, there would be some spiritual gain. So when you fast, if you're truly looking for spiritual results, things can happen that may seem hard, but remember, a tree only bears more and better fruit when it is properly pruned from time to time. But is it worth it? Absolutely!
  23. Yep, after 2,400,789 posts, the winner will be So sad!
  24. The big surprise will come when the winner finds out just what it is that they have won.
  25. (she goes off pouting, whiningly saying) "I wanna win..."
  26. Yes, there are many times things are added to the store-bought frozen veggies. I don't like them, myself, other than broccoli. This cauliflower supposedly doesn't have any additives. I had gotten some cauliflower "tots" for Randy to eat like tater tots, but found that there is sugar in them. So he isn't supposed to eat them, which is sad because he really liked them. I do give him a few once in a while, though, so they don't go to waste. But once the bag is gone, that's it. I saw a recipe that shows how to make your own tots from several different veggies...I just don't know if the amount of work put into it is worth it. Ricing fresh cauliflower wouldn't be difficult - I could put it in a food processor. But it's pretty convenient to have the frozen. He said it really is a good sub for rice. Today is a "cheat" day, so he had some Taco Bell for lunch.
  27. To my fossilized way of thinking, mission boards are one step away from an association or convention. I know, I am "old school", but I am not of the school that justifies a mission board's existence with the statement that "Few churches possess the personnel or capability to provide all the services and know-how needed to adequately assist a missionary who has been called to serve in a faraway place." I say this from personal experience where our small (40 member) local church helped and fully supported two of our missionary families to Far East Russia against all odds. I am a believer of and fully convinced that if God calls, He is fully able to supply every need.
  1. Load more activity

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

  • Create New...