Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Reincarnation is originally from the Hindus in India. On Taiwan, most of the Buddhist religious sects, and the Taoist sects, have some sort of reincarnation tenets. All of the various sects that believe in reincarnation differ in several respects. All of the various religious sects offer different aspects of reincarnation, when it occurs, how it occurs, why it occurs, and how the cycle of reincarnation ends. The study of reincarnation, and the symbols, and the ceremonies, and the type of reincarnation, is a very involved study. Here is a Wikipedia article that gives you some basic beliefs of reincarnation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation A true believer in reincarnation, and not like most causal believers here in America, usually have various religious ceremonies, pictures in there homes of various Buddhist or Hindu symbols and religious observances that they would normally do. If your friend does not claim a Buddhist or Hindu belief system, and if your friend does not have Eastern symbols or pictures on the walls of her house, than, quite frankly, she has just a passing, or an insincere, or a notion, that she believes in reincarnation. Like Dave said, she is just giving an excuse or she just kinda thinks it may happen. If your friend continues to claim she is a true believer in reincarnation, I would suggest reading to her Luke 16:19-31 and let her know plainly that after death the soul either is in hell or in heaven. I do have a tract, in Chinese, that I use for Buddhists and it gives the story in enough detail so that a true believer in reincarnation knows that the belief is false. I do not specifically mention reincarnation due to space limitations in a tract, but the story speaks for itself. Here is a link to the English pdf copy of that tract. http://taiwanvbc.com/john3.16&1corinthians15.1-6englishtheloveofgod.pdf If your friend is a devout believer in reincarnation, and she gives you any Buddhist, or Hindu, material, let me know and I can help further in some of the terminology that they use. May the Lord bless your efforts in reaching your friend for Christ.
  3. From your description, she doesn't believe in reincarnation but is using that as an excuse to "avoid God". I say that because she changed to "Hell is alright with her", and then changed the subject and led you away from presenting salvation through Christ. A good lesson - don't let the other person control the direction of the conversation - no matter what they say, acknowledge it, then bring Christ into it again. Remember: Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Gove her a Bible, if she will take it, and try not to argue about side issues, as they only serve to distract
  4. I've become good friends with a lady who lives down my street. I actually met her soulwinning one day just passing out a tract and an invitation for church. She was sitting outside on her porch, which made her easily approachable. The next day, she was sitting outside again and we talked again over many days, just chit chat. She knows church and my Christianity is important to me. Today, she had butterfly suncatcher on her window. I told her how much I love butterflies and how the represent salvation from being a disgusting worm to a beautiful butterfly. I started asking about her religious upbringing and such, she said she was raised Baptist. I asked if she was saved and she said no. I asked if she was interested in being saved, etc. She told me she doesn't believe it anymore and believes in reincarnation, that we all just keep coming back again and again until we get it right. I just said that was really sad that was what she believed. She said the devil can't get me I'm getting cremated. I said yes, but your soul will still go to hell. She said that's ok, at least I know where I'm going. I replied wouldn't you rather go to heaven? Then she got off the something about the Bible is against women. I explained the hierarchy of God, man, then the women. We talked about that awhile. Eventually, I said "well I sure hope you will go to church with me sometime anyway", she replied she might. I'm really stumped, I've never known someone who believed in reincarnation. Not sure how to respond. If she doesn't believe in God, should I still give her a Bible? I have no tracts dealing with reincarnation. I'll be praying for her and put her on prayer list at church. I usually see her about every day just to talk and friendship over coffee. She's not going to be rude to me if I gave her another tract or something. I'm not going to be pushy with her, because I don't want to push her away. Need guidance please!
  5. Yesterday
  6. Psalm 100:3 Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture. John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. If you ain't a "sheep", Jesus didn't give His life for you and you ain't one of "His people".
  7. They're (were?) a religious order that followed Benedict's rules. Independent monastic communities, black robes. Not sure what you mean by needing an unbiased description... what other info are you looking for? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_Saint_Benedict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedictines
  8. I am reading Dr.William Grady's Book, Final Authority about the history/ms., and canonization of the KJV as compared to the faulty Alexandrian ms., and I don't exactly know who the Benedictines are. I know that they're obviously connected to the Catholics and established a monastery, but I am having a hard time finding an unbiased explanation of them on the internet. It's not in Grady's glossary or appendix either.
  9. "By humility and the fear of the LORD are riches, and honour, and life." Proverbs 22:4
  10. Why would you give money to a group that is not biblical, when you could give some money to a missionary that your church supports or knows, and then you know that the money will go to the furtherance of the Gospel, and not into some organisation which will eat half of it up for the running of their "business"? I know that the church I go to has a separate "missions giving account" and every single dollar that is given for missions goes the missionaries who are out there preaching the Gospel and seeing people saved: not one cent of it goes to admin and running costs of this church - that is taken care of from the general offerings (and ONLY from the general offerings). Salvation Army do a lot of good stuff, but they are not God's organisation, the local church, which God commissioned to do the work of the Great Commission.
  11. Merry Christmas to Chick-fil-A! My wife have had many pleasant meals at Chick-fil-A and spend around $10 a week. From today forward, we are going to fast once a week instead of going to Chick-fil-A and give the $10 a week to the Salvation Army in addition to the normal contribution we make to this outstanding Christian Charity.
  12. Last week
  13. Robycop, Here is one answer to your question. Sometimes a person thinks the Spirit is speaking to him. This could be valid if the message is confirmed by scripture. Sola scriptura means we believe what scripture clearly says we should believe and try to do what scripture clearly says we should do. We try to not do what scripture clearly says we should not do. A corollary of sola sciptura is that we are not bound by traditions that are not definitively required in scripture. This argues against patternism. Patternism is the procedure followed by the churches of Christ. They try to follow the patterns they see in the New Testament , even if such are not explicitly required, and try to avoid doing anything in worship they do not see in the NT, even if such are not explicitly prohibited. Eg, using a musical instrument or having a rummage sale in the basement of the church. Did i get that right?
  14. This is Biblically inaccurate. When Eve ate of the fruit, she engaged in the first transgression against God's command. As such, she is the first human sinner. 2 Timothy 2:14 declares, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." Eve DID eat of the forbidden fruit. Eve DID commit sin against the Lord God by so eating. Eve did eat of that fruit and thereby commit sin FIRST. On the other hand, Eve was NOT the divinely appointed representative for the entire human race. God had placed this appointment upon Adam as the first man. (See 1 Corinthians 15:45-47) Thus Romans 5:12 indicates that by the sin of the one/first man Adam (not by the sin of Eve) sin entered the world of mankind, and death by that man's sin. Indeed, it is "through the offense" of the one/first man Adam that "many be dead." (See Romans 5:15) Indeed, "the judgment was by one [the first man Adam] to condemnation." (See Romans 5:16) It is "by one man's offense" that "death reigned by one." (See Romans 5:17) It is "by the offence of one" that "judgment came upon all men to condemnation." (See Romans 5:18) It is "by one man's disobedience" that "many were made sinners." (See Romans 5:19) Indeed, when the Lord God presented his command unto Adam in Genesis 2:16-17, He spoke directly to Adam; and at that time Eve was not even yet created. Even so, the Lord God employed singular pronouns in His command to Adam, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." First, there is NO Biblical principle which indicates that if God spoke directly to someone about any given matter, that His quotation about that matter MUST be recorded in Scripture. That is a human conjecture, NOT a Biblical truth. Second, Eve herself reported differently than your conclusion. In Genesis 3:3 Eve delivered what she claimed to be a direct quote from the Lord God, saying, "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." It should also be noticed that in her quotation from God, there are TWO significant differences in comparison to the direct command of the Lord God unto Adam as recorded in Genesis 2:16-17. The first and most obvious difference is the addition, "Neither shall ye touch it." The second significant difference is her usage of PLURAL pronouns -- "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." These plural pronouns within her direct quotation from the Lord God indicate that the Lord God had INDEED spoken this command unto BOTH of them (as a "ye") after Eve was created. First, Eve herself NEVER stated that she learned this command "through Adam" as you claim, nor does any statement of Scripture ever indicate such. This is simply human conjecture. Second, Eve herself DID quote the Lord God as speaking His command to the "ye" (plural, as them both). Third, your declaration concerning "how the majority of men pass along messages" (indicating the need to "listen well" and implying the failure of many men not to "listen well") applies a common failure of sinfully fallen men unto Adam, who at the time was yet in a sinless state. Such an application is a faulty application. The characteristics of sinful man CANNOT rightly be applied unto Adam before his first disobedience and sin in eating the fruit. Before that sinful disobedience his characteristics were faultless, not faulty. Fourth, your declaration concerning "how the majority of men pass along message" in itself even only encompasses "THE MAJORITY" of men. It does not encompass ALL men ALL of the time. Thus you are making an assumption about its application unto Adam for that given case without any Biblical evidence to do so. Again this is human conjecture. Grammatically, Genesis 3:6 does NOT directly say that Adam was present with Eve throughout the serpent's temptation against her. Yes, Genesis 3:6 does employ the phrase, "And gave also unto her husband with her." However, from a grammatical perspective the prepositional phrase "with her" can carry two possible indications. On the one hand, it could mean -- Who was PRESENT with her. In this case the prepositional phrase would modify "her husband," indicating his location. On the other hand, it could mean -- For him TO EAT with her. In this case the prepositional phrase would modify "and gave," indicating her objective. How might we choose between these options? Well, IF Adam was present "with her" throughout the temptation (as you indicate above), then indeed "Adam said nothing," and did not "stand up to the serpent and reiterate God's Word for word command," and did not "say a word in protest." Then indeed Adam "SHOULD HAVE chimed in with 'Nope . . . God commanded me NO, we cannot do that." Yet IF Adam was present and SHOULD HAVE done something that he did not do, then THIS was his first sin. Not doing something that one SHOULD do in the sight of God IS a sin. YET God's Holy Word NEVER attributes such a sin to Adam, but ALWAYS indicates that his first sin was partaking of the fruit. According to God's Holy Word, Adam's first sin was partaking of the forbidden fruit, NOT failing to be a good husband unto his wife. As for myself, I will NOT accuse Adam of a sin that God's own Word does not accuse him of.
  15. Yes, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself did indeed say, "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men." This declaration by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself (God the Son Himself) indicates that the sin of homosexuality can INDEED "be forgiven unto men," and thus that such sinners can INDEED be saved (through faith Christ). Any other voice on the subject simply does NOT match the authority of God the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. What then should we do "if any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ . . ."?
  16. I am Sola Scriptura, as, doubtlessly, many other people here are also. That is, we believe that ALL our intel about God, & ALL His commands to us come from Scripture only, & we don't believe any precepts or commands of worship not found in Scripture. Anyone who believes otherwise, can you show us any other legitimate source of intel about God, or any of His commands not found in Scripture ?
  17. Most of the meetings of Christians in NT Scripture were on the first day of the week, thich has always been SUNDAY, on our calendars. (Some calendars are made to show Sunday as the last day of the week, for various reasons, usually pertaining to work schedules.) But, are we disobeying GOD by having our special worship days on Sundays? Not according to what He had Paul write in Col. 2:16- Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: (Remember- He gave the Sabbath ONLY TO ISRAEL.)
  18. I was reading an article about the history of the Church of the Brethen earlier and seem to at least stumbled upon why they baptize forward. “For example, they baptize in a forward direction because "we are baptized into his death", and at the moment of his death, Jesus' head fell forward.” I still see frontwards or backwards to be non - essential, but at least I know now why they decided to baptize in that direction.
  19. God made the world out of nothing. If we are nothing, He may be able to make something of us.
  20. In the centuries past they would bury someone face down as a punishment or condemnation for deep sin, or apostasy. Since baptism is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, the symbolism of being "buried in the likeness of his death" would be tarnished if buried face down or forward symbolizing sin or heresy in Jesus. This is only a possible explanation.
  21. Brethren, The Lord Jesus clearly stated that there is only one sin that is unpardonable, "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." Matthew 12:31-32 "All manner" includes Sodomy, idolatry, a reprobate mind, lying, stealing, blasphemy, adultery, fornication, and of the the other sins listed in Romans 1:18-32. The teaching of John R. Rice, and, "The Unpardonable sin," as written in the July 2, 1948 issue of, "The Sword of the Lord," is also found in the "A Verse-by-Verse Commentary on Matthew," by John R. Rice on pages 181-183. Pastor Joe Major is distorting the very words of John R. Rice to try and prove that Rice taught, "The Reprobate Doctrine." Please take notice that pastor Joe Major will not quote John R. Rice, in either the July 2, 1948 issue nor his Matthew Commentary. Not one time in either article does John R. Rice mention the following words or characteristics: (1) the word reprobate is not even mentioned. (2) Homosexuals, or any derivative of the word, is not mentioned. (3) The sin of homosexuality is not even hinted at. Among his fine exposition of Matthew 12:22-32, concerning 31-32, John R. Rice states, "The unpardonable sin is a complete and final rejection of Christ so definite and blasphemous that it insults and drives away the Holy Spirit forever. Then He no longer moves the heart, brings conviction or arouses desire for salvation." John R. Rice is very clear and Pastor Joe Major, and the other NewIFB brethren who use Pastor Major's video, is purposely deceiving all those folks who watch the video. Paul Christian, pastor Joe Major, and the other NewIFB followers, are trying to tie John R. Rice into their heretical teaching and are trying to slander and distort men of God who are passed away and cannot speak for themselves. Shame unto them.
  22. Dealt with NN. Thanks for the report.
  23. Jesus said that the only sin which cannot be forgiven is the "blasphemy of the Holy Ghost". So to say that homosexuals or effeminates cannot be saved is quite frankly a lie of the Devil. The Bible plainly mentions "abusers of themselves with mankind" and (speaking to Christians) says "and such were some of you". Now a Homosexual or effeminate who has blasphemed the Holy Ghost; that is, of course, a different story, they sin their "day of grace" away as anyone else doing the same. As to a "reprobate mind", this is a morally corrupt mind. But God does not "make" a person think, say or do wicked things. People cultivate that stuff themselves. When God stops pleading with one's heart, He then "leaves them to their own devices" so to speak. That is what "giving them over to a reprobate mind" means.
  24. Good question. As far as the scriptures go, I can not think of a verse that specifies forwards or backwards, so I will answer based on my personal opinion. It seems like to me that the symbolism in New Testament of dying and rebirth brings to mind one being laid in their deathbed on their back, and then raising back up to life. That makes more sense to me but I’m certainly not saying other immersions aren’t valid. In Rabbinc Judaism (whose roots go back to the Pharisees) when someone converts they have to go the a Mikveh (like a small indoor pool filled with rain water) and I believe they enter the water and dip themselves under and up three times. I personally have never seen a Baptist Baptism done leaning forward, but that doesn’t mean it’s not practiced.
  25. Correct me if I am mistaken, but scripture appears to be silent on whether we should be baptized backward or forward, as long as the procedure involves immersion/submersion/dipping. My German Dunkard ancestors were baptized three times forward. That seems to be tradition, as is one time backwards in other churches. Are IBC pastors neutral about the choice? When I was baptized, it was one time backwards, but forwards would appear to be more comfortable.
  26. I agree that Muhammad didn’t prophecy in the sense of the Old Testament prophets, but he does have several prophetic statements according to the Hadiths. For Muslims The Quran itself is proof that he is a Prophet of God. Muhammad is considered to be more of a Moses type figure than the Biblical Major and Minor Prophets. Muhammad isn’t looked at as a mystic or from purely spiritual standpoint. Like Moses creates an entire way of life and religion for Israel to follow, Muhammad is looked at as the “Moses” for all mankind perfecting it religion, laws (sharia), and final revelation in the form of the Quran.
  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...