Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

What About Our 'own' Convictions?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

This is an independent Baptist forum and many of the basics are defined in the forum rules.

Anyone who comes here and teaches what is contrary to board rules and position deserves to be warned and ejected if they continue to do so.

In my view, anyone who is not in agreement with the board basics should not be allowed to run teaching threads - and yet it happens here.
Take part in discussions? Sure.
But not to lead a study thread.

Good measured discussion is helpful to all.
But if you don't agree with what the board clearly states as core beliefs for the board, and have no willingness to discuss and possibly change then why are you here? (Generic you, not specifically you.)

Now someone such as yourself, who has a different position on a few issues and is OBviously not willing to change on that, but is happy to discuss other issues and let that issue slide whilst here, is fine.
But don't come with an attitude that the forum is wrong and then constantly try to teach that the board is wrong on stated beliefs.
like some do.......

Everyone knows I am willing to change my position if they can prove me wrong by Scripture.  I have challenged many to do so.  Thus far, none have produced Scripture to refute my stance. 

Can Pastor Markle meet the challenge?  We shall see some time in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Is false practiced based on false teaching or interpretation?

 

 

This is an independent Baptist forum and many of the basics are defined in the forum rules.

Anyone who comes here and teaches what is contrary to board rules and position deserves to be warned and ejected if they continue to do so.

In my view, anyone who is not in agreement with the board basics should not be allowed to run teaching threads - and yet it happens here.
Take part in discussions? Sure.
But not to lead a study thread.

Good measured discussion is helpful to all.
But if you don't agree with what the board clearly states as core beliefs for the board, and have no willingness to discuss and possibly change then why are you here? (Generic you, not specifically you.)

Now someone such as yourself, who has a different position on a few issues and is OBviously not willing to change on that, but is happy to discuss other issues and let that issue slide whilst here, is fine.
But don't come with an attitude that the forum is wrong and then constantly try to teach that the board is wrong on stated beliefs.
like some do.......

I don't think Steve, Geneva, Covenator or anyone disagrees with the basic fundamentals laid forth on this sight.

 

But to argue endlessly over no gap or a gap is not necessary false seeing it is based on ones interpretation.

water baptism of adults is clear but did they enter the water and then John poured water on them or laid them back into the water is moot seeing the scripture wording can be interpreted either way and when we look at the wording as to the fact God poured out his spirit on believers and we are baptized by the Holy Ghost could his pouring be an example as to how John did it?  Baby baptizing though is clearly not spoken of but again some interpreted "he and all his" as including infants.  Well would you immerse a baby?  I think not so pouring would have been done if any had done it.

Is Musick done only with instruments or is singing also musick?  Interpretation is what leads to opinions on musick the Bible teaches both? Whether classical or pop, piano or organ, hymns or spirituals they are all interpreted as correct means of musical worship.  My rule of thumb if it moves the flesh it should not be used.

Tithing (not going there) but again some put the law of tithing for Israel on the church and some do not.  It is ones interpretation.

Dispensationalism (one interpretation study method) verse those who do not hold it as the way to rightly divide.  Are these reasons to label a person a heretic, false teacher or some other nomer?

 

Every word of God is important and should be considered.  That is why it is important we are just as familiar with the WORDS as we are with the doctrines, the prophecies, and practices of the Bible and why we need to ask the who, what, why, when where, which and how.  We need to look at and conclude what is for the body of Christ and what is for Israel as that is important when it comes to the kingdom that is promised to Israel and their ultimate promised inheritance of the earth to rule over all the earth.

 

There is so much that we don't know and if you are like me you have changed some views on some doctrine, some practices and some prophecy over the years as you study.

 

After I had some PM with Happy today a scripture came for me of course.  I was trying to see how I could be or write that it did not come across negatively, Hard or berating, and this scripture came to mind.  1Peter 3:8, 9 "Finally, be ye all of one mind, (ye is a plural English word so it is meant for everyone) having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful (it does not mean to act pitiful but to have a broken heart for some), be courteousNot rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing".  I hope I can fulfill these in my forum life here and Should not we all strive to do these as well.

 

I have personally had OBserved Steve over the years on different forums and have even had disagreements with him.  but as I OBserve his posts over the last month one thing I see is Steve has had some deep changes in the way he presents his ideas and how he reacts.  He has grown.  I hope that I have grown as much as he has over the last few years.

 

I know of a few others here and have had contacts with them and each of them has grown and matured and I hope that as we interact we will all be a blessing to each other whether by way of sharing, teaching and reproving.  For that is what we are to do in forums and as brethren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


In my view, anyone who is not in agreement with the board basics should not be allowed to run teaching threads - and yet it happens here.
Take part in discussions? Sure.
But not to lead a study thread.

 

 

I have had a few here tell me that I ought not participate on this site because I do not consider myself IFB, though I generally avoid getting involved in theological discussions.  

 

Frankly, it still leaves a bitter taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have had a few here tell me that I ought not participate on this site because I do not consider myself IFB, though I generally avoid getting involved in theological discussions.

Frankly, it still leaves a bitter taste.


I have no prOBlem with ANYONE who is willing to discuss, but in my opinion the IFB section should be for IFB only - that is what it says in the title for the Section. ......

The rest is open forum - BUT non-IFB should not be leading studies at all on this site.
Participation by anyone is fine, but as soon as someone begins to lead a study when they don't hold to the board basics is the time to put a stop to them.
participation and leading/teaching are two different things.

And GP - yes I was speaking of you in that section of the quote, particularly in relation to bible versions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have had a few here tell me that I ought not participate on this site because I do not consider myself IFB, though I generally avoid getting involved in theological discussions.  

 

Frankly, it still leaves a bitter taste.

That has been said to me as well.

 

I don't consider myself by titles, identification or association though the world will know you by your associates and looks and considers men by titles and positions.  But I am of the Body of Christ and so are you and everyone here (I hope) that is my only true identification or title.

 

As I read through 1 Peter when I got home from work (I didn't have time this morning as I had to cut off my pm with happy and get to work) but as I read the first 8 verses a lot of things stuck out.  Though the context was about believing wives and husbands and their conversations with them, the fact that God's word says that without a word the unbeliever would be won to Christ by their conversation really struck home.  Many men would not even let that verse come near as it is about a believing wife (woman), but generically applicable, will my life, words and actions win someone to Christ without a word? 

 

That is what I thought on this evening.  You talk about a wordless Gospel this is it.  I am still meditating on the chapter and it has new meaning to me as I read it.  (I have read it well over fifty times in the last 19 years).  The more I give myself to God's word through total belief that every word is true and has importance the more I learn.

 

So just hang in there we all get the negative stuff but sometimes a blessing comes through it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

AVBibleBeliever

Thank you for your kind words.  I appreciate it.  I am often ashamed of how I have reacted in the past, and sometimes, it still slips out. 

One of the reasons I continue to participate in forums like this one is for my own personal growth. 

 

Can't tell you how much I appreciate what you said.  It means a lot to me.

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have no prOBlem with ANYONE who is willing to discuss, but in my opinion the IFB section should be for IFB only - that is what it says in the title for the Section. ......


Agree. The site has provisions intended to make it what the owners desire it to be. Unfortunately, some are not happy with the IFB section and think that it ought to be made site-wide. They want those of us who have differing opinions out.


 

The rest is open forum - BUT non-IFB should not be leading studies at all on this site.
Participation by anyone is fine, but as soon as someone begins to lead a study when they don't hold to the board basics is the time to put a stop to them.
participation and leading/teaching are two different things.


Again, I agree. It goes to simple respect of the rules of participation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wrong, AVBB.

Either there is a gap, or there is not a gap.  Both cannot be truth.  And the one that is not true... is false.

 

 

Water baptism?  Full immersion.  The word baptidzo means to immerse.  Pouring water over someone is not immersion.    The very definition of the word reveals it is immersion.  Pouring and springking are both false doctrine.

The prOBlem is, the translators of the KJV were all infant baptists, teaching immersion of the baby unless it was sickly when sprinkling was permitted a valid baptism. AFAIK what they believed about a gap is not recorded in the 39 Articles which was their agreed standard.

 

Can we trust the translators who OBviously didn't understand their own translation in the IFB way?

 

Yes, we can trust a faithful translation, guided by the Holy Spirit, but who on this forum writes in the power & wisdom of the Holy Spirit? We do write with God-given wisdom, but also we disagree on matters of interpretation. Does disagreement amount to error, making one a false teacher. I think not.

 

What makes a false teacher is one who preaches "another gospel" - another way of salvation not centred on LORD Jesus Christ & his atoning sacrifice, crucified & risen, as our covenant representative & substitute. That leads on to questions of the God/man nature of Jesus, what he taught regarding the kingdom of God, being born again - of water & the Spirit. I hope we agree on the answers to those questions.

 

Where we disagree is when we use a paradigm - interpretation system - to understand the Scriptures. Is dispensationalism, or covenant theology, or "IFBism," etc, the correct way of interpretation? Does over-reliance on our paradigm lead to conclusions not supported by the Scripture we are interpreting? And do different paradigms lead to serious error? And if YOU use a different paradigm to ME, is one of us necessarily a false teacher. 

 

I respect those who use Scripture to challenge my teaching, but not those who stick a label on me & reject ME because of the connotations they attach to that label. [e.g. Covenant theology = replacement theology.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And on the 70 weeks thread where I used ONLY the passage in Daniel and you and at least one other used all sorts of stuff, who was relying on Scripture and who was relying too much on a system?

False teaching comes from systems - if you follow a system why does it offend you that people label you by the system you use - even after you name yourself by that system?

On eschatology you teach false.
You appear to support infant baptism, which is false.
There are things you appear to teach which are false.
Yet you cry about being labeled, when you label yourself and then deny what that system teaches, but teach what that system teaches...........

You label yourself, by your name and by what you teach on this forum.

And what you teach is not only against God's Word but it is CLEARLY AGAINST THE STATED POSITION Of THIS FORUM.

Two strikes against you in this place......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Stanfirm, I still have you on my ignore list.  and if it weren't for covenater I would never had seen your post or part of it.

 

MHO is you have to run to the Greek to get the Meaning and give no study to how God defines a word in the English.

 

If you had read the T's and Y's article by dave reese I posted you would know that the English used in it was 1) not common and 2) the English Language developed with it's Bible just like theHebrew language. 

 

But if you have to run to such unreliable sources as Greek Dictionary's with their confused meanings of Classical Greek imposed on Koine Greek, which are two different Greek languages, then you are limiting you understanding to the work of other men and not you own work of study in the English KJV you hold in your hand.  If you go to the Greek dictionary (other men's works and systems are in these as well) you will do 1) remove the word from context, 2) add a meaning from outside source, 3) force the word back into the scriptures with the greek meaning thereby creating a pretextual study instead of a contextual study.

 

Either throw out the KJV and learn Koine Greek, good luck with that it has been a dead language for well over 1,000 years, not even the best in 1611 had full knowledge on how it was spoke and had the meanings they had to rely on others and the Holy Ghost. 

 

My Point is you take one word from the context and run to the Greek while ignoring the surrounding context of the whole KJ Bible.  If kept in context and going to all the words of Baptizo you will find that the process of Spiritual Baptism is said to "Pour out the gift of the Holy Ghost" as described by Peter not immersed.  We know this is the act of baptism is of the Holy Ghost for Gentile believers and it is said God poured it out not immersed.  in Eph 4 where the one baptism is mentioned is not water baptism but Spirit Baptism into Christ.  Which Peter said it was done by God and that he Poured it out.  and it was the baptism Peter got not from John but from Jesus when he said they would be baptised of the Holy Ghost and not one of them was immersed.  Peter said that it was God who Poured it out on  the Gentiles just like he had done to the 11 in Acts 2.

 

the baptism the two disciple said they could be baptized with was crucifixion and indeed they were crucified later however that baptism was not immersion either it was crucifixion.

 

My point is not every use of the English Baptize is Immersion.  and if God poured out his Spirit on us this could indicate how John Baptized.  People walked down into the water and he poured water over their heads.  There is not indication that John Immersed anyone for the Bible is silent on the procedure.  Not only that, Baptizo may have more that one meaning, immersion , being one of themas we had shown in the English KJV context.  But just because the dictionary guys decided to not give all the meanings doesn't mean it is limited to immerse again the context helps define the English word.

 

I like the immersion personally because I like to hold them down long enough that when I let them up they are speaking in tongues. 

 

Just kidding

 

I use the standard buried in his likeness and raised in newness of life from Romans 6, even though there is no water any direction for 20 verses of Paul's writing in Romans 6, but it makes for a nice formula representing our Identification with Christ's Cross, death and life.

 

Stop running to the Greek, you don't know how to speak Koine Greek and truthfully neither do the Greek professors in the Universities.  You speak English Learn it in the English first and keep the context to understand the meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...