Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

PreacherBen

Tools for the Ministry
  • Posts

    450
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

PreacherBen last won the day on November 5 2017

PreacherBen had the most liked content!

About PreacherBen

  • Birthday 11/30/1961

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

5,247 profile views

PreacherBen's Achievements

Community Regular

Community Regular (8/15)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges

21

Reputation

  1. As to the REAL trail being doctrine, you have to make that very open. Many "baptists" did not believe in eternal security as taught in many modern baptist churches. By this I mean unconditional eternal security. This was originally called unconditional eternal election. We got that from? You guessed it, the Reformers. Yes, I know the New Testament doctrine of sotariology. I understand justification by grace through faith. But that teaching has been uijacked and retooled to tell someone as long as they "said the prayer" they can NEVER go to hell. I heard one popular IFB preacher say, "If Hitler said the prayer as a teen, and meant it, backslid and did all those atrocities, he still went to heaven." Arch heresy!
  2. If you think modern Baptist doctrine is organic and is strictly New Testament in origin, then where did we get the "just war" theory? From the Reformers, who got it from the Catholics, who got it erroneously from the Old Testament. Jesus told "Believers" (NOT NATIONS, just to clarify,) to love, bless, and not render evil for evil to our enemies. AnaBaptists, did NOT take up the sword except for some spurious groups that vanished into OBscurity. Those called anabaptist were commited to the teachings of Christ. They did not kill their enemies. Period. You will not find it in the ancient groups of apostolic origins. Zwingli, Luther,Calvin, and their Protestant followers came up with Just War so they would be vindicated in taking up the sword against enemies of the Church/State, which included the anabaptists. See: The Reformers and their Stepchildren, by Verduin. P.S. Where did Baptist church buildings get those steeples? Rome.
  3. The harbor long had shrunk from site, no longer could I rest within its shore. Life's voyage had led me further out than I had ever dreamt to sail before. Tempestuous waves oft crashing o'er the sides of my frail bark, Fearing that I was alone, tossing in this cold and noisesome dark. But then I heard a cheering voice, twas the Captain of the mighty sea. "You're not alone, with outstretched arms, I always keep you very close to me." So now I venture on, e'en though the swelling tide is raging still. The ship that sails His charted course shall never sink within His Sovereign will. Bro. Ben
  4. Prior to the 1600's there was no group that called themselves "Baptists." There may have been groups "labeled" Baptists because of their form of baptizing, but the group now identified as Baptist came out of the Puritans. When they saw that the Church of England was not going to reform, many pulled completely away. Seeing the more biblical practice of the Dutch, German, and Swiss anabaptists, they took from both schools of thought and produced the Baptist church. The Trail of Blood has some interesting content, but is Baptist drum beating to rally the troops. Carrol's premise that we came from John the "Baptist," is about as shallow, unscholarly, and historcally inaccurate as the church of Christ's claim to authentcity. Our modern Baptist doctrine is a composite of beliefs that have been formulated over the last 400 or so years. Baptist dctrine is a fine system of beliefs, but does not neccessitate beleving that the Baptist church "as we know it" today, went all the way back to Jerusalem, (to the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem, equipped with a Donkey ministry to bring in little poor kids.) I would like to recommend the book, The Pilgrim Church, by E.H. Broadbent. Though an Anglican, he was genuinely converted and noticed the Church of England was NOTHING like the Book of Acts. Being well versed in several languages, traveling extensively, and having access to tons of great documents, he wrote a pretty comprehensive history of church progress through the ages, ending in the early 1920's.
  5. Hello, OB brethren. It's been a while since I've been on. I'll make this as short as possible. I lost my jOB due to health reasons in 2012 and went on disability. In the following year my marriage and family life suffered greatly. I left my home Nov. 2013 due to conflict. Not saying that was the best choice, but what's done is done. While away I had a major health crisis and had to be hospitalized. I'n (very) slowly recovering. I am trying hard to reconcile with my wife and go home. Would you please pray for wisdom and help from the Lord for this? Thank you. Bro. Ben
  6. "And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house, Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." Acts 20:20,21 I believe one of things that is spiritually killing people and churches in our day is a shallow understanding of the message of the cross. Some, fearing "low results" have given way to a cheap, 1,2,3,4 say this prayer type formula that, as with good saelsmanship, may get convert slips turned in, but will NOT get names written in the Lamb's Book of Life. Notice Pauls core point, there's only two: 1. Repentance toward God, THEN 2. Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. Man cannot place saving faith in Christ without understanding what he is being saved from. A formula is NOT going to save him. So what is the primary thing saving faith toward our Lord Jesus saving us from? Is it sin? In a sense, yes, salvation will pardon our sin, and sanctification will work on sin's control in our life, but, NO, that's not the FIRST thing Jesus is saving us from. Is it Hell? In a sense, yes, salvation will keep us from going to hell, but that is not the primary thrust of salvation. So what is Jesus saving us from FIRST? GOD! "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36 Because of God's holiness, righteousness, and justice, man is in The Great Dilemna! He owe's a debt he cannot pay but must be payed. Paul wrote: "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Rom. 2:2 Christ is the propotiation for the debt we owed God for/because of our sins. Satisfaction had to be made, nothing else would do. I know that God saves in spite of some of the error that has been produced since we came up with the door-to-door Romans Road type salvation, but I'm also solidly convinced we've sent myriads to hell trusting that their unchanged heart had God bound to their "prayer" they said, never knowing they'd offended a holy God with their sin. Honestly, is it hard to confess the first point of the Romans Road? All have sinned. A beer drinking, hell raising, fist fighting, hell-bound biker would tell you he's a sinner, and EVEN maybe feel a little bad about it. . . sin. . . not that he'd offended God, but that the social implications of his behaviour is wrong and perhaps harmful (to some.) But what about God, do we just quickly pass through points 1 and 2, rushing them to the FREE GIFT, and the SINNER'S PRAYER? Indeed. Repentance toward God is an acknowledging that we have offended Him and that without the propitiation provided by Christ we are in desperate trouble and without remedy. It would be far better to spend a week with one guy then rush 5 through a prayer that very welll may give them "false assurance" and send them straight to hell clinging to the the statement by the well intention soul winner, "Now write that date in your bible and when the Devil comes and says your not saved, you say Oh yes I am and point to that date!" never knowing that it WAS NOT the Devil but the sweet Spirit of God calling one last time before someone slips off to hell! When the CONVINCED sinner comes to God in repentance THEN and ONLY then, does God in his Holy Love point to His Son and say, "There! There! Do you see Him on the Cross? My only begotten Son, full of grace and truth? He is your remedy, go to Him!" Repent and be saved!
  7. OOPS! I meant to say, There Might NOT Need To Be A Literal Temple Building I've pondered the necessity of the Temple being rebuilt, but what if there is not Temple? Consider: "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it." Rev. 21:22 Is not the antichrist the great imitator of Christ? Perhaps the vile abomination is the Old Serpent himself "tabernacling" in human flesh and declaring his deity? "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)" Matt. 24:15 "How art thou fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into Heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." Is. 14:12-14 "Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick. . . " Ezk. 28:17,18a "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thess. 2:3,4 The tribulation "times" could be ushered in without alot of observation, except for a brilliant world figure who is able to bridge the gap between Isaac and Ishmeal! The beginning of the 3-1/2 year great tribulation might be his bold step forward.
  8. As the verse states: “Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, AND faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21). It is both, a turning from, and a going to. Paul noted the heart of the Thessolonian believers: 1 Thess. 1 [9] For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; This could be the reason for the great spiritual anemia in the 21st Century church. I heard a message from an older brother in the Lord, Daryl Champlin, 'What Happened to the Romans Road of Salvation?', and he said before Dr.'s Hyles and Rice, they preached repentance, but as society became more and more dark, door-to-door soul winning did not work WITH repentance. So. . . they removed it. Now, I don't want to lay the blame on just those men, but I can see how that type of "mindset" could affect some. I believe we need to "teach" just like Matt. 28:19,20 says so people will see the "from" and "to" of biblical salvation. It's not works, it is reality. What are we really trying to achieve, a big number of convert slips from Saturday soul winning, the making of real disciples who have considered the cost, and chose Christ and the Cross?
  9. My father-in-law brought his (3rd) wife, their 6 children, and a step-brother into the LDS church after Darlene and I got saved. He tried everything to get us to "convert." I began reading all the LDS literature I could get my hands on. I would find the missionaries biking or walking along, stop, and engage them in, sometimes, hours of discussion. I soon realized my spirit wasn't right and what I really wanted to do was use the Bible to give them a "holy" whippin.' Then the Lord shed light on this in my quiet time, and he began to give me a love for these (usually) young people. After that our talks were more productive and I even saw some fruit. I never had one, "convert," that I know of, but had many tell me they were going to seriously consider what I had shown them.
  10. Yes, but no one ate his flesh or drank his blood, but he and those in the early church DID wash feet. Good, what did Jesus say? John 13 [15] For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. He did not say, "Do some spiritual thing that is pictured in what I did." No, he said, ". . . do AS I have done. . ." It does not take a Greek scholar to figure that one out. Read it to someone in the third grade Sunday School class and ask them, they'll tell you. No one said it was. Basic hermeneutics would show that he wasn't giving an illustration. They usually looked like this: Luke 21 [29] And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; John 10 [6] This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them. This was not a parable, he got down on his knees, washed their feet, and told them to DO likewise. It's that simple.
  11. But you still cannot get away from clear command: John 13 [13] Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. [14] If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. [15] For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. [16] Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. [17] If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them. We are either going to obey clear commands, or not. If we pick and chose, then we are creating a new kind of "faith" where the bible is NOT the final authority. We do not obey because we see the relevance, we obey out of love. John 14 [15] If ye love me, keep my commandments. This is why in our 21st century "Christendom" we have a hard time with (archaic) things like foot -washing, head covering, and the holy kiss. We think it needs to be relevant. When we fall into that trap are we not doing the same thing the guys did when they developed the "critical" text? The Received Text wasn't good enough, scholarship, (surely) could out do the archaic KJV. Perhaps the coldness of the age has caused us to feel "a bit" uncomfortable with holy things. The holy kiss is just that, holy. If you look at it with the jaded mindset of a worldly Christianity, it seems, unnatural. But, we embrace a supernatural God and a supernatural faith. It would do us good to go outside our "box." Just some thoughts, Bro. Ben
  12. Some early church quotes: The rite of feet washing appears to have been practiced in the early centuries of Christianity, though the evidence is scant. For example, Tertullian (145-220) mentions the practice in his De Corona, but gives no details as to who practiced it or how it was practiced. It was practiced by the church at Milan (ca. A.D. 380), is mentioned by the Council of Elvira (A.D. 300), and is even referenced by Augustine (ca. A.D. 400). "St. Benedict's Rule (A.D. 529) for the Benedictine Order prescribed hospitality feetwashing in addition to a communal feetwashing for humility." "For He who washed the feet of the disciples sanctified the entire body, and rendered it clean." (Irenaeus, A.D. 180) "'If she has washed the feet of the saints'—that is, if she has performed without shame the lowest offices for the saints" (Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 195) "What unbelieving husband will permit his wife to offer water for the saints' feet?" (Tertullian, A.D. 205) It was pracitced, and was not an ordinance. Though some groups have made it an ordinance, it does not erase the practice. I realize the "symbol" it represents, but the Lord said: John 13 [13] Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. [14] If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. [15] For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. [16] Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. [17] If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them. 1. You ought to wash one anothers feet. 2. You should do AS he did. 3. We are not greater than he to second guess his intentions. 4. We shall be happy if we DO it. Furthermore, we are told when to do it: John 13 [1] Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. [2] And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him; [3] Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; [4] He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. [5] After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. Again, should we not do what our Master did and commanded out of obedience?
  13. Deeper, Still My troubles seemed to overwhelm, Why must things seem so ill? I cried out, "Oh, how deep my wounds," But his love was deeper, still. My debt hung over like a cloud, How could I pay this bill? "Lord, I've reached my lowest point!" But his love was deeper, still. My heart was aching for relief Who can this hunger fill? "Must emptiness be always here?" But his love was deeper, still. My journey seemed too much for me, As if twas all up hill. "My energy is tapped, I'm spent!" But his love was deeper, still. My eyes then lifted from my lot, And gazed upon a hill, "Lord, you gave all, for one like me?" But his love was deeper, still. So now I see that though lifes trials, May exceed my strength or will, He can meet my deepest need, And his love is deeper, still.
  14. Sister LuAnne said: So is Istanbul, Turkey. There is a guy there named Adnan Oktar, who goes by the pen name, Harun Yahya, which is Aaron John, (the High Priest, and the Revelator,) who is proposing both the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate, AND the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. Oh, my! Isaiah 1:13,13, said: Amen, good one. Check out his site dedicated to the second coming of Christ: http://www.jesuswill....com/index2.php and... Muslim Leader Wants Temple Rebuilt
  15. Let's read Daniel 2:41-43: [41] And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay,and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be init of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the ironmixed with miry clay. [42] And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. [43] And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave oneto another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. I, like you, have long thought this was the New Roman Empire that is emerging before our eyes, and it could very well be. God calls the shots. However, I have another theory based on current events that needs serious consideration. What if the mixed kingdom is not Europe but Islamic in nature? What if it is the Muslim Brotherhood? Have you done enough study on this groups to see how many nations they have influence in as well as how long they have been around? I'm sure you have. Consider this: The MB is a movement, not a political party, but members have created political parties in several countries, such as the Islamic Action Front in Jordan and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank and the newly created Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt. These parties are staffed by Brotherhood members. . . Although Iran is a predominately Shia Muslim country and the Muslim Brotherhood is Sunni in doctrine, Olga Davidson and Mohammad Mahallati claim the Brotherhood has had influence among Shia in Iran The Interior Minister of Saudi Arabia, Prince Naif Ibn Abdul Aziz has stated that the Muslim Brotherhood organization was the cause of most problems in the Arab world. 'The Brotherhood has done great damage to Saudi Arabia,' he said. Prince Naif accused the foremost Islamist group in the Arab world of harming the interests of Muslims. 'All our problems come from the Muslim Brotherhood. We have given too much support to this group..." "The Muslim Brotherhood has destroyed the Arab world,' he said. 'Whenever they got into difficulty or found their freedom restricted in their own countries, Brotherhood activists found refuge in the Kingdom which protected their lives... But they later turned against the Kingdom...' The Muslim Brotherhood has links to groups across the Arab world, including Jordan's main parliamentary opposition, the 'Islamic Action Front,' and the 'Palestinian resistance movement, 'Hamas." The Interior Minister's outburst against the Brotherhood came amid mounting criticism in the United States of Saudi Arabia's longstanding support for Islamist groups around the world..." from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood The MB is primarily a Sunni organization, but they have, for their political purposes, unified themselves with their Shia counterparts creating an imperfect union. Politically, they are unified in their hate for Israel, but what would cause them to be unified to an even greater extent than that? The revelation of the Al-Mahdi, the Shia messiah. Though the Sunni's don't embrace that, YET, they would if he came on the seen. You are familiar with the 12th Imam, I'm sure. That is ALL this Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is about. It is what his name is all about. Notice: Mahmoud - "The praised one", "Worthy of reverence", and "Laudable or commendable" Ahmadinejad is actually a compound name and it would be more properly presented in English as two names "Ahmadi Nejad." The first part, Ahmadi, means "highly praised" or "most highly praised." The second part of his last name, Nejad, is a Persian suffix that means "descendant of." So when he signs his full name, he looks down at the piece of paper and reads in Farsi: "The Praised Descendant of the Most Highly Praised." Which sounds almost like the title "Son of The Most High." Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_meaning_of_the_name_Ahmadinejad#ixzz1b9RodRnY God allows people to be named certain names for certain times. When Israel needed to be "drawn out" of Egypt, he brought along a baby, who was drawn out of the Nile River by pharohs daughter, and grew up to draw his people out of Egypt, named Moses, which means, to draw out. When the fulness of times was come, God brought forth his son to "save his people from their sins." Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name, Joshua, which is the condensed form of Jehovah-hoshua, God is our Saviour. So, names mean something, at stratgic times. According to their prophecy, in a time of great world calamity, the Al-Mahdi will come forth and call Isa, (Jesus,) out of the sky to establish the Caliphate. He, the Al-Mahdi, fits the description of the False Prophet. What if the False Prophet and Antichrist are Islamic? Why not. We've always thought these guys were European, but current events points another direction. Even this: "And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared." Revelation 16:12 Iraq Suffers as the Euphrates River Dwindles - NYTimes.com www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/world/middleeast/14euphrates.html Drought Reveals Iraqi Archaeological Treasures : NPR www.npr.org › News › World › IraqSimilar - Mar 20, 2009 – Ancient buildings have emerged from the river bed in Iraq's western Anbar province as the Euphrates River dries up. For the first time, ... Just a couple of casual Google searches. We can discuss another time the "when" of Rev. 16:12, but the fact is, what if the kings of the east are Muslim invaders, and not China? Again, consider this: "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Rev. 20:4 Question: Who beheads in the Middle East? Ding! Right! The Muslims, we've seen it in the news. Well, I typed this kind of quick, and it is somewhat scattered, but in your studies, consider that we are looking at an Islamic Caliphate as the New World Order, not some European Union oriented group, (or the Pope as some have indicated.) Thanks for reading, Ben
×
×
  • Create New...