PreacherE

Under the rules of grammar, proper diagramming means knowing what the words mean. Unless and until one knows what the words mean, it is a futile exercise to try and parse.
An example would be that of the old english word "conversation." That word now means a dialog between 2 or more people. However, that is not what it means in the KJV. And, no, you cannot glean just from the context what it means. You actually have to go back to the old english AND the greek. I realize that to many people that is considered verboten, but that's the truth of the matter, else you will be teaching untrue things about God's Word. The old english "conversation" would include our words, but in the KJB, it means every action/lifestyle.
Now, before folks get on their dudgeon and claim that they don't need the greek, realize one thing: if you know that the word "conversation" in the KJB means more than just speech, it is because someone who looked into the greek passed it on either to you or the one who taught you what it means.
The word for "Children" in the KJB is both singular and plural. And there is NO mandate to have a certain number of children in order to pastor. That is a creation of man, and has become a tradition. It puts an onerous burden on people and is why Christ warned of taking for truth tradition of men.
To tell someone who is called of God to pastor that he is not qualified because GOD (who, anyone who knows anything about the KJB 
knows is  the giver of children) did not give him children (or only gave him 1', or took his children through death) is a cruel, ungodly trick of the devil.

Deserves a double "like" in my opinion. ;)

You know, my observation of Calvinism is that a) it isn't learned from the Bible - it comes from the teaching of men - many books and 'much learning' - and b) it presents itself as an intellectual doctrine and attracts those who are drawn to intellectualism. It often seems to become a point of pride - "see how much more study/learning I have done" or "see how much more I've thought about it than all you peons". Your statement above about 'shallow thinkers' really does reflect this observation, as it displays this as a point of pride in your life (you obviously think that you are a much deeper thinker than anyone who rejects MacArthur or Calvinism).

Oh, and I am going to answer a question posed above. You asked if I considered Spurgeon to preach a damnable heresy, and said that if I said yes, I'd condemn one of the greatest preachers of the Western world (thus attempting to negate my statement by the supposed position of the man). I haven't studied Spurgeon much, so I really can't speak to what he did or did not preach. However, if he did teach the 'doctrines of grace' (irresistible grace, total depravity, unconditional election, etc.), than yes, he did preach damnable heresy. And you know what? If he preached such heresy, then perhaps he was not one of the 'greatest preachers of the Western world'. Because the popularity of a man does not define the truth of his teaching.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Gal. 1:8
My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. James 2:1
For their is no respect of persons with God. Romans 2:11
 

Here is what we know of what God says about the matter of gender-specific clothing:
 
(Deuteronomy 22:5) "¶ The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”
 
He is clearly stating that there is clothing that exists for each gender that the other must not wear.  
 
We can all come up with obvious and uncontested examples of clothing that are only to be worn by women (dresses, skirts, brassieres, pantyhose &c.). We must be able to do the same thing for men’s clothing.  If it is not possible for women to wear clothing that is only for men to wear, then Deut. 22:5 makes no sense.
 
So, if a skirt or a dress, which covers the lower half of the body, is an unmistakable and exclusively female garment, of which a man is not to wear, a garment must exist, which covers the lower half of the body, which is unmistakably and exclusively male, which a woman is not to wear.  I believe that, today, that garment is called a pair of pants. I believe that the biblical equivalent were breeches.
 
Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines breeches thusly:
 
BREECHES, noun plural brich'es. [Low Latin braccoe.]
A garment worn by men, covering the hips and thighs. It is now a close garment; but the word formerly was used for a loose garment, now called trowsers, laxoe braccoe.
To wear the breeches is, in the wife, to usurp the authority of the husband.
 
Breeches are mentioned five times in Scripture and they are all in relation to men. (Exodus 28:42, Exodus 39:28, Leviticus 6:10, Leviticus 16:4 and Ezekiel 44:18). 
 
They are also implied by the use of the euphemism of covering one’s feet in Judges 3:24 and 1 Samuel 24:3.  Some argue that covering one’s feet may mean that they were sleeping (their feet covered by the blankets).  I find this unlikely since the variations of sleep (sleep, sleepeth, sleeping, slept, slumber, slumbereth and slumbered) are used 156 times and no euphemism would be needed for sleeping.  That would be akin to the word of God recording that Saul went into a cave to “saw some wood” or that King Eglon’s servants were ashamed that their king was “catching a few z’s.”
 
I don’t believe that we can draw a distinction between women’s pants and men’s pants.  That would be like saying that men are allowed to wear men’s dresses, just not women’s dresses.  
 
A male friend of mine used to wear low rise, tight fitting blue jeans.  It wasn’t until I went to a store with him that I learned that he bought women’s jeans.  He had been wearing jeans designed for women, for years, and I had no idea.  I just thought he dressed like an idiot.
 
Perhaps, there are some who might be able to discern between men’s and women’s pants up close, but who can make that distinction from 100 feet away or more?  If I see a silhouette of a person wearing a pair of pants, how am I to know if that person is a man or a woman?  Most would say that they would then try to discern feminine shapes and anatomy, which causes us to look at and concentrate on areas which contain genitalia, which is something that I don’t believe that God wants us to be doing.
 
I think attempting to draw a line between men’s pants and women’s pants is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.  We are told to "Abstain from all appearance of evil.”  When a liberty is in question, I err on the side of caution and self restriction, or like my father taught me, “When in doubt, do without.” If I am unclear on wether of not scripture permits something, or if a permitted thing will cause someone else to stumble, I have no problem abstaining from that thing or action.  
 
The subject of women wearing pants is as clear to me as men wearing dresses, but I am aware that it is not as clear to others as it is to me.  To them, I would ask, “Why is it so important for you that women be allowed to wear pants when you know that it causes division and confusion?”
 
Consider this example: An employer makes a rule that his male employees must wear black shirts and that his female employees must wear white shirts.  What would be a good reason for either gender to see how much of the opposing color they could get away with adding to their shirts before they could be accused of not wearing their assigned color?
 

If a man puts on a dress, we look at him like he's a fruitcake. But if a woman wears bluejeans, most consider that normal and socially acceptable. Like I've said before;  it's no wonder there are so many effeminate men and masculinewomen. Our society is OK with women police officers, bosses, construction workers, big game hunters and infantry soldiers: women have taken over all the men's roles including wearing our pants. I'm serious. No wonder we have so many pathetic folks who can't use their own bathroom. And our stupid president makes facilitating such the law of our land. Short answer is "No". A woman should wear womens clothes, and act like a feminine lady. Let men wear men's clothes and be men....and use the men's bathroom. Speaking of bathrooms, isn't the universal symbol for "men's room" a stick-dude wearing pants? And look what the "womens" symbol has on...If the WORLD still recognizes the "dress" symbolized on a bathroom door, then THAT is what "pertaineth to a woman" in our culture; know what I'm saying?

The best man standing right now to run our country is Ron Paul. He's the only one who predicted how we would get here blow-by-blow back in 2002, and he's the only one I believe who has the courage and principles to do what needs to be done to get us out of this mess. While I can vote for him, I will. My primary vote will be for him because I support the message of freedom and I hold dear the Constitution.

Electability is a whim of masses that changes with the wind. I intend to vote upon principles, not a whim.

Way of Life Encyclopedia
CHRISTMAS

Christmas it the celebration of the birth of Christ. It refers to Christ's mass, which obviously has a Roman Catholic origin. Normally it is observed on December 25. The practice was popularized by the Catholic Church, and like many other Catholic traditions, it was adopted from paganism; in this case, from the pagan mid-winter solstice marking the turn of the year. The following is a brief overview of its origin: "Saturnalia extended from December 17 to 24 and in A.D. 274 the emperor Aurelian made December 25 a feast of the invincible sun. January 6 was sacred to Dionysus. With the toleration of Christianity under Constantine, both December 25 and January 6 became Christianized feasts (Christmas and Epiphany, respectively). Symbols, originating largely from classical or Teutonic-Celtic paganism, such as lights, greenery, and special foods, gradually became associated with Christmas, as did St. Nicholas, whose feast on December 6 had been a time for giving gifts, especially to children" (New 20th-Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, pp. 181,182).

All of these things can still be observed in some pagan religions. For instance, in Hinduism, there is a festival of lights in early winter that features bright lights, special foods, the giving of gifts, the alleged visitation of a goddess who bestows blessings on those who are good, etc.
The Santa Claus observance is a Roman Catholic/pagan myth. The Catholic Pocket Dictionary of Saints has this to say about "Saint" Nicholas: "His popularity, already great, increased enormously in the West when his relics were brought to Bari in 1087, and his shrine was one of the great pilgrimage centers of medieval Europe. He is the patron of storm-beset sailors (for miraculously saving doomed mariners off the coast of Lycia), of prisoners, of children ... which led to the practice of children giving presents at Christmas in his name and the metamorphosis of his name, St. Nicholas, into Sint Klaes, into Santa Claus by the Dutch. It should be noted though that the figure of Santa Claus is really non-Christian and is based on the Germanic god Thor, who was associated with winter and the Yule log and rode on a chariot drawn by goats named Cracker and Gnasher" (Dictionary of Saints, pp. 369,370).

We don't have to reject every social pleasantry of the Christmas season, but God's people are plainly warned to beware of philosophy, the tradition of men, and the rudiments of the world which are not after Christ (Col 2:8). Christmas can be a pleasant social holiday, and there is nothing wrong with such things; and I see nothing wrong with remembering the wonderful birth of Christ, so long as the emphasis is not on His birth but on His death, burial, and resurrection.

At the same time, we reject the paganism and the Catholicism of the occasion. Our children have never believed in Santa Claus; we have never had Santa's image in our home. I believe that is idolatry. My wife was talking recently with a Hindu woman who thought that the Christian's God is Santa Claus, and that Santa Claus had a son who is the Christian's Savior. Sadly, for many professing Christians, that is probably close to the truth; because they glibly and mindlessly follow such pagan traditions.

As for the Christmas tree, we have often enjoyed one in our home, but we see it as merely a pleasant social thing that has nothing to do with our faith in Christ. Some have tried to intimate that Christmas trees are condemned in Jer 10:2-5, but I think that is off base. Jeremiah 10 is condemning idolatry, and I don't know anyone who makes an idol of a Christmas tree. We certainly don't. An idol is something used to portray God, but I have never heard of a Christmas tree being used in such a manner. At the same time, it is fearful to see Christmas trees and such things set up in churches. At least in my estimation, that is a step toward Catholicism. One might as well get some crucifixes and pictures of Jesus and a Mary with a halo to put alongside of it!
We can't "put Christ back in Christmas" because He never was in Christmas! Christmas really has nothing to do with the Bible. Christmas is not Christ's day. The first day of the week is the Lord's Day, the day of His resurrection, and it is the only special day God has given Christians. We are to honor Christ's resurrection, not His birth.

The bottom line is that Christmas is a Catholic myth. We know that Christ was not born in December. The fact that the shepherds were out in the fields when He was born (Lu 2:8) is evidence that Jesus was not born in the winter time. There is no indication in the Bible that God wants us to celebrate His birth with a special festival. If He did, He would have told us when He was born and what we should do on that day. Christianized error is error still.
Dear Christian friend, enjoy your freedom in Christ during the Christmas season. If your activities are not condemned in the Scriptures and you have a clear conscience before the Lord (Ro 14), you are free to enjoy yourself. At the same time, "Little children, keep yourselves from idols" (1Jo 5:21).

Scripture is clear enough that Christians shouldn't drink alcohol and is also clear that such is for fools. No Christian in right relation with Christ could drink alcohol with a clear conscience.

Not everyone believes there are any "exceptions" given in scripture. As I said before, it is a matter of qualifications not a slam on anyone. A blind man isn't qualified to drive, a double amputee isn't qualified to compete in a foot race. It matters not at all how long ago they were disabled or whether their disability was their own fault or the fault of someone else. The fact remains that they are disabled regardless of the reason and can't do everything someone not suffering from that disability can do. Does that somehow make them "second class" citizens? No, of course not, there are other areas where their disability is not critical and there they can compete on a level field with others.

When a person has been married, and then that one flesh relationship joined together by God is put asunder by man contrary to Gods will it causes a spiritual traumatic injury and a resulting public and private disability of a sort that means there are a few things they can't do. David was a man after Gods own heart and was beloved of God yet God refused to allow him to fulfill his hearts desire to build the temple to the Lord because he was a "man of war" and had "shed blood". Was God slamming David or was he somehow not fully forgiven for his various sins? No, he had the "sure mercies of David" and was fully forgiven, he just wasn't qualified to do that particular job for the Lord because of the life he had led. Likewise Moses, certainly one of a half dozen or so men closest to God in all the scriptures was disqualified from leading the people across jordan and entering into the promise land because he had violated one of Gods pictures of Christ and smote the rock the second time when he was told by God to only speak to the rock on that occasion. As a consequence he disqualified himself and died without entering into the promise land even though at the time of his death "his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.". In other words he would have been fully capable of leading them across Jordan and doubtless would have done so but for the fact he was disqualified from that role. David and Moses were both close enough to God that they did not attempt to rebel against his will and accepted that they could not do these things even though in both cases it was a strong desire of their hearts and they were in a position where they could easily have proceeded in the flesh had they wished. I can truly say one of the things that grieves me most is when I see someone that has a heart for God and a desire to do something good for God and the ability to do it well, yet they simply are not qualified for the job because of past actions. It grieves me that metaphorically speaking sometimes David can't build the temple and sometimes Moses can't enter the promise land but sometimes that is just the way it is sad though it be. I have also seen the other side of the coin where the metaphoric David or Moses desires to do the particular thing for God so strongly that they simply will not listen to his will and proceed to do it anyway in the flesh. That is even sadder. I really think in such cases where a man has a heart to pastor and the ability to do it but yet is biblically disqualified the best thing he can do is follow the example of Moses and David. Moses helped Joshua as much as he could and prayed for him, David encouraged Solomon and charged him in the building of the temple as well as gathered together a large percentage of the materials Solomon would need for the temples construction. I think God blesses the obedience to his word in such cases and I believe God often shows the individual the promise land metaphorically speaking and gives their heart joy and peace in what he does allow them to do because they don't fret about what they can't do or enter into a state of biblical denial and do it anyway.
.

This is to all non-IFSB posters: This is a IFSB forum. We are here to fellowship and exhort each other, not constantly defend our beliefs to folks who simply want to challenge and argue with us. You agreed to that when you joined.

We've tolerated your non-IFSB doctrine to the point that several of you are taking the role of moderators by answering questions with your beliefs, not the beliefs of the members of this forum.

If you don't agree with us, that's fine. I'm sure there are plenty of other forums where you can find support for your beliefs. I, for one, am sick and tired of these ad nausem debates that go on and on, and then resurrect themselves to go on and on again.

I've allowed discussion to continue for discussion sake, but it's obvious that we're not going to change each others' minds. I'm employing the spiritual principle of separation and asking you to please leave us alone and join forums that agree with you.

Pastor Mitch Holmes
Moderator