Jump to content
Online Baptist Community


Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    John81 got a reaction from Chase Tallent in Near Confrontation During House To House   
    There are so many being given false assurance of heaven due to unbiblical, over simplistic, say it and be done with it, means of presenting "salvation".
    So many people are walking around today with the false belief they will go to heaven when they die because they repeated a prayer, answered some guys questions rightly and they prayed for him, they were baptized, or they pray with a TV preacher every week.
    All too often the false assurance these people have serves to harden their hearts to the Gospel, leaving them worse off than before.
    What an amazing thing that a couple dozen "soul winners" from Church On The Corner each claim to have led over a hundred people to a "decision for Christ" yet not a one of those over 2,000 people who were supposedly saved are in that church. Moreover, those people are not to be found in any other church around either. That should be a very clear signal that something is very wrong with the "soul winning" those folks are engaged in.
    Meanwhile, Joe shares the biblical Gospel with folks he meets each day. After a year of this two of those people are saved, baptized and being built up in Christ as members of Joe's church.
    Joe's "numbers" look dismal compared to the Corner church folks "results". However, what serves the Lord, seeing two lost souls saved or declaring over 2,000 lost souls to be okay with God when they are as lost as ever?
    Genuine salvation results in changed lives.
  2. Strongly Disagree
    John81 got a reaction from Scott Lyons in John Calvin Had It All Wrong   
    It seems one of the prOBlems here is that in many cases Calvinists and non-Calvinists have different definitions of what a Calvinist is.
    As pointed out above, a Reformed church that preaches the biblical Gospel, sends forth soul winners who use the same Romans Road approach many non-Calvinists do, and sees many come to Christ, even though they believe in election and predestination along the lines of what Spurgeon, Edwards and Whitefield did, there will be non-Calvinists who write them off as not really being Calvinists.
    This is odd, especially since most of these folks don't actually consider themselves to be Calvinists, but as believing in the doctrine of grace (or however they word that term) which they see as being biblical. Their own teaching points to Scripture as being their source, they often cite Paul's writings as where God brought it all together. Then some point to Augustine as being among the first to take to writing about it. Then they point out that Calvin was the first to systematically put it together at a time when such could finally become widely available thanks to the printing press. The odd part being that non-Calvinists will say man Calvinists are not actually Calvinists but when "Calvinists" say they are not Calvinists because they are not following Calvin, the non-Calvinists demand they be called Calvinists. It's all rather circular and gets one nowhere.
    From what I've seen, non-Calvinists know more about the life of Calvin than do "Calvinists" and this is because "Calvinists" don't follow Calvin. It's similar to the way non-dispensationalists often know more about Darby than do dispensationalists. Again, both sides argue over how to define one another while missing the actual points.
    So, back to the point of the Gospel. If "Calvinists" or Reformed or whatever term we are using, do preach the biblical Gospel message, then how can that be called a false gospel? If there is evidence of hundreds of thousands being born again in Christ over the centuries through the preaching and ministry of particular Calvinists, then how could that be if they are presenting a false gospel?
    It doesn't matter what Calvin himself did or said. The question is only about whether or not "Calvinists" are preaching the biblical Gospel or a false gospel. Wesley was vehemently opposed to "Calvinism" yet he teamed up with a staunch "Calvinist" (Whitefield) and freely acknowledged the working of the Lord through him and that many came to Christ through his preaching.
    The evidence seems to suggest that outside of "hypers", Calvinist are preaching the biblical Gospel that leads folks to salvation.
  3. Strongly Disagree
    John81 got a reaction from Scott Lyons in John Calvin Had It All Wrong   
    Thank you Dave. I appreciate your taking the time to answer my question. I'm not going to ignore what you said, I simply haven't seen evidence of Spurgeon, Edwards, Whitefield or the Calvinists I know of ever presenting a false gospel.
    Spurgeon pointed out that what we might call hyper-Calvinists were an aboration and not faithful to Scripture. That of course would lead back to the whole "what does or doesn't election and predestination mean in Scripture".
    So, sticking to the focused point, I don't see how "Calvinism" is leading folks to hell outside of those who take the hyper approach which is somewhat of another side of the coin where some folks practice "quick prayerism".
    Again, I do appreciate your response. I now know what you meant, even if I'm not currently seeing it. Thank you.
  4. Like
    John81 got a reaction from asch in Pastor Cancels Wedding Over ‘Sexy Dress,’ Persecuted For Modest Mindset   
    Pastor Cancels Wedding Over ‘Sexy Dress,’ Persecuted for Modest Mindset
    Pastor certainly created a stir in his local church when he refused to marry a bride and groom because he felt her dress was too “sexy,” according to a report in AmericaPreachers.com. Here’s a segment of the story:
    “The wedding scheduled Saturday, Aug. 10, was scheduled for 3 p.m. At 2 p.m., the pastor greeted the bride and groom when he noticed the bride’s dress. According to the bride’s mother, the pastor jokingly asked, ‘Where is the other half of the dress?’ Not thinking anything of it, the family laughed it off and continued applying make-up on the bride. Around 2:30 p.m., the pastor asked a leader of the church to ask the bride and the family about the other part of her dress.
    “The bride informed the leader, ‘This is it.’ The leader reported the news to the pastor and then the pastor informed personally the bride and groom at separate times he could not perform the wedding with the bride in her selected dress. The pastor told the bride she would have to cover up her breast area and find a way to add length to the dress. The bride informed the pastor there is no way to accomplish this with so short of a notice and she has to wear her dress. Then the pastor informed her he would not be able to perform the ceremony then walked back to his office.”
    Was this pastor, whose ministry is 14 months old and who runs a storefront church, out of line for ruining this young couple’s wedding day? Or did he take a stand for modesty that deserves applause? That depends on whom you ask:
    “I am sad for the bride who wanted a church wedding in a hoochie mama dress, but even sadder for the pastor who missed his teachable moment,” commented Kim Trent.
    “Can you wear this dress on the senate floor? Can you be a doctor and wear this dress at work? If the answer is NO then you cannot wear this to church as well. Just like the world has its proper decorum, so does the Church of Christ,” Marvin Pierre wrote.
    “That was foolish of the Pastor—get out of the way and let somebody else do the ceremony. You don’t wait till the wedding day to embarrass people in front of their family & friends. They should sue him. It’s none of his business,” Marlin J. Reid wrote.
    “I believe this pastor did the right thing. He wasn't rude... he gave them multiple chances to add to the dress. Its His right to honor God the way he sees fit. People come to church with different ideas, but purposeful pornography should never be celebrated,” Esosa Killingidols said.
    “The pastor's fashion sense overrode God's will?!? There is NOTHING in scripture that mandates/governs what the bride shall not wear to her own wedding,” Lawrence H. Thompson says.
    “God is not looking at her outfit, God is not looking at how 'sexy' she is. God is looking at the fact that a man and woman are coming together in unity to become one. We need to stop putting focus on the outside,” Rashad TrueGospel Tarpley wrote.
    “I respect him for standing up for the reverence of God and the sanctity of marriage. Her display of expression doesn't trump the Holiness of what God is expressing in marriage,” wrote Dean Boyd.
    “I feel this is the very reason that people turn away from the church, we as Christians are too religious to be real and be more like Christ who would not have turned away any sinner,” Tricia E. Fields commented.
    My opinion? Well, if you read my last article, you know where I stand. I don’t believe women should come to church—even unsaved women looking for a pastor to perform a wedding ceremony—scantily clad. In my first article, some criticized me for not calling men to the same standard. I absolutely do. I don’t want to see men’s boxer shorts, bulging biceps and tight pants any more than I want to see a woman’s cleavage.
    But here’s the point: For some reason, this issue is getting more and more attention in the body of Christ. You can lambaste me for bringing it up, but it’s certainly hitting a nerve with anything-goes-anywhere-you-want and modest-minded people alike. I think Christians should model the way with their attire, just like we are supposed to do with our words and actions.
    Paul said not to be conformed to this world (Rom. 12:2), but when we dress like lingerie models in church—or anywhere else—we’ve given the spirit of the world too much influence. If God doesn't care what we wear, Scripture wouldn’t tell us to adorn ourselves in modest apparel, in clothing that is proper for women professing godliness (1 Tim. 2:9-10).
    The bottom line: We shouldn’t wear clothes that contrast with the biblical command for modesty, which kicks off an entirely new debate of what modesty means. I can assure you, based on the [removed link due to inappropriate attire. Mod] photo of the dress the bride chose, it was anything but modest.
  5. Like
    John81 got a reaction from Alan in Why Don't Baptist Fast   
    Who said Baptists don't fast? As with many things, teaching and practice regarding fasting differs from one Baptist church to another, and from one Baptists to another.
    Properly (biblically) done, fasting can be a wonderful tool.
  6. Like
    John81 got a reaction from Doc Flay in Scientific Facts in the Bible.   
    Most people, even professing Christians, don't know this, don't know the various verses of Scripture which were scientifically accurate long before scientific man discovered such. Most just mindlessly spout off what they've heard from ungodly teachers, atheistic professors, the liberal media and fictional TV shows and movies.
    It's amazing how often, both online and in person, people make false claims regarding the accuracy of Scripture as if what they declare is settled fact. Point out what Scripture actually says and most won't bother to check it out for themselves, they will just dismiss it or deny it.
    It's good to remind ourselves God is Creator, and also all-knowing. God established all that is, was or ever will be. Imagine His own creation speaking as if they know more than God and as if their theories and attempts to sound brilliant are so far above the Word of God.
    One of the things that struck me with so much awe and wonder after I was saved was my new appreciation for "nature". Suddenly I could see God's hand in all of creation and I remember the feelings within me to this day and how I praised God and thanked God so much and so often for the beauty and wonder of His creation.
    Creation speaks to the fact of God and I'm glad you put forth this thread.
  7. Like
    John81 got a reaction from Doc Flay in HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?   

    By Bill Sizemore

    February 20, 2009

    Many Christians are under the impression that if you believe the Bible, then you must believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. But is this so?

    Christians come to the 6,000 year conclusion, not based on something the Bible says about the age of the earth, but by tracking the biblical genealogies from Jesus back to Adam, which add up to about 4,000 years, and then adding in the 2,000 years from Christ until now.

    From a biblical perspective, this approach tells us approximately how long man has been around, but as we shall see, it does not necessarily tell us how long the earth has been around.

    Modern scientists, on the other hand, generally claim that the earth is more like five billion years old. They dismiss the 6,000 year claim as absurd, believing they have reams of conclusive evidence of a much older planet.

    Scientists mock those ?ignorant, Bible-thumping, fundamentalist Christians? and their 6,000 year doctrine, while Christians damn those ?godless, atheistic, Bible-rejecting scientists,? who claim the earth is five billion years old.

    With some trepidation, I toss my two cents into the fire. Here are the questions I will raise and attempt to answer:

    (1) Is the real age of a material thing, if it was created supernaturally, what it appears to be? As we will see, the Bible answers this question.
    (2) Is it possible to determine the age of any physical thing without first determining whether it was created in time or in eternity?
    (3) Were the days of creation, which are described in the first chapter of Genesis, twenty-four hours long, or could they have been much longer?
    (4) Is it possible to be truly scientific, if you reject the fact that the earth and its creatures were supernaturally created by God ?ex nihilo? or out of nothing?

    Let?s begin with this very real possibility: Christians are trying to defend a theory that the Bible may not teach. Biblical evidence for the claim that the earth is only six thousands years old is hardly conclusive.

    The Bible opens with the well known passage, ?In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth?? and a little later it says, ?and the evening and the morning were the first day.? In this brief passage of scripture we are told simply that God created the world. The passage doesn?t tell us how long God took to do that - only that He did it on the first day of creation, whatever ?day? means in this passage.

    This description doesn?t tell us whether time existed on day one, when God created the earth, or if time began later. It is at least possible that time did not yet exist. We know from many scriptures that God dwells in eternity, the ever present ?now,? which at least makes it possible that ?in the beginning? was before the creation of time or what we call the time/space continuum. We do know this about time: Time is a temporary thing and in the last book of the Bible God ends it.

    Based on what we see happening later, it is unlikely that the first day of creation was a day as we use that term:

    On the very first day of creation, God said, ?Let there be light,? and there was light. We are not told what the source of that light was. It is important to note that it was not the sun.

    Genesis says that on the first day, God separated the light from the darkness and called the light day and the darkness night. There was light on the first day, but there was not yet a sun. God did not make the sun and moon until the fourth day! (See Genesis 1:14-19.)

    Let?s step back and look at this for a moment. It is generally believed that Moses wrote the Book of Genesis. Moses lived approximately 2,500 years after Adam was created. That?s a long time later. Obviously, the only thing the author of Genesis could have known about the first day of creation was what God told him.

    The author of Genesis, knowing that the sun was not created until the fourth day, wrote that there was light on the first day. He obviously knew when he wrote this that the sun is what lights the day. That fact has been self-evident to all men at all times.

    If the author of Genesis was merely making up the creation story and wanted to be credible, he would have said that the sun was created on the first day and provided light for the earth from then on. But he didn?t. He wrote what was he was told to write about the first day, even if he didn?t understand it.

    The Bible doesn?t tell us the source of this pre-sun light. The most likely answer is God himself. The Bible teaches that God dwells in unapproachable light. The Bible also teaches that in the heavenly city, the Lamb (Jesus Christ) is the light of the city.

    Another question that springs to mind is: If there was no sun on the first day, how do we know how long the first day lasted? For us, a day lasts 24 hours. That fact is based on the time it takes for the earth to rotate one time on its axis facing the sun. A year is based on the amount of time it takes for the earth to orbit the sun one time.

    With no sun, there is no basis for knowing how long the first day lasted, or the second or the third. In fact, there is no basis for knowing how long it took God to do any of the things He did before the fourth day of creation. They could have happened instantaneously or gradually. There was no way to measure that.

    The sun is the God-ordained instrument for measuring time on the earth. It must therefore be an open question whether time existed before the fourth day of creation. If it existed, there was no basis for measuring it.

    Some Christian scholars insist that the days of creation were 24-hour days, because the Hebrew word translated ?day? in Genesis 1:5 (before the creation of the sun) is the same Hebrew word used elsewhere in the Old Testament to mean a 24-hour day. This is not a very persuasive argument. Hebrew words are not always precise or specific. The meaning of a Hebrew word is often determined by its context. Also, there are several examples in scripture of the word translated ?day? not meaning a 24-hour period.

    Now, let?s look at the fourth day of creation. What God says about the reasons He created the sun is instructive.

    Genesis 1:14: ?And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years?? The passage goes on to explain that one great light (the sun) would rule over the day and give light upon the earth and a lesser light would rule over the night. Notice that the sun was created on the fourth day, not just to provide light, but also to determine seasons and days and years or one might say, to determine time.

    One would logically infer from this passage that if God created the sun to determine days and seasons and years, there was no way to tell days and seasons and years before that. If the sun was created to measure days and years, those days of creation mentioned before the creation of the sun could have been of any length or perhaps of no length at all.

    As strange as it sounds, it?s possible that there was no ?time? at all before God created the sun. When one is speaking of the great ?I AM,? the ?Ancient of Days? who dwells in eternity, one could argue either way. After all, time is for us, not for Him.

    Now, nothing we have said thus far tells us that the earth is five billion years old, as scientists claim. In fact, even if carbon dating and other methods scientists use for estimating age were sound and reliable, which they are not, those employing those methods still could be entirely wrong in the conclusions they reach. Why? Because the earth may appear to be very old and yet not be. Such is the nature of supernaturally created things.

    For example, when God formed the first man, Adam was a full grown adult, not a baby. When Adam was only one hour old, he had a fully formed adult body. That?s the way God made him.

    If a doctor had given Adam a thorough examination one hour after God had made him, Adam would have appeared to have been a perfect specimen of a human male of perhaps twenty to twenty-five years of age. Scientific evidence would have informed the doctor of Adam?s age, the doctor would have been fully convinced of that age, but the scientific evidence would have led him to a false conclusion. Adam was still only one hour old.

    When Jesus miraculously turned pots of water into wine, as is chronicled in the second chapter of the Gospel of John, the master of the feast concluded after tasting this brand new wine that the host of the feast had broken with tradition and saved the best wine for last.

    Now, in order for this newly created wine to have been the best wine, it would have had to have been aged for some time, at least to fermentation. A scientific test of this new wine would have proved conclusively that it was older than it was, perhaps by several years. The tests would have been scientifically correct, but the conclusion reached would have been wrong. The wine was minutes old and yet had the physical characteristics of wine of an older age.

    Things that have been created or made supernaturally are not subject to scientific tests to determine their age. Scientists may be able to ?prove? to their satisfaction that created things are much older than they really are. However, created things exist simply because God spoke them into existence. No matter how old they may appear to be, their true age cannot be determined.

    For this reason, scientists who deny the reality of creation lock themselves into a set of rules that are entirely inapplicable to created things. Their unbelief prevents true scientific enquiry into the nature of created things and makes them susceptible to convoluted, contrived theories.

    Furthermore, there are plenty of common sense reasons to call into question science?s five billion year theory. For example, at the current rate of measurable erosion the earth?s mountain ranges would be flat, if the earth were billions of years old. Slowly but steadily, wind, rain, ice, snow, and avalanches are eroding the mountains at a measureable rate that precludes an earth-age in the billions of years.

    At the current rate at which the Mississippi River delta is forming, as silt flows down the muddy Mississippi to its mouth at the Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi delta would reach all the way to Africa, if the earth was five billion years old.

    Perhaps you recall when the first spacecraft landed safely on the moon? That first craft was equipped with large, round dishes for feet, so the craft would not sink into the thick lunar dust. Based on the five billion year theory, scientists concluded that the moon must be covered with lunar dust several feet deep.

    When the craft landed, however, it was discovered that there was only a thin layer of dust, perhaps a few thousand years worth. This discovery flatly contradicted the five billion year theory upon which the craft had been designed.

    Consider this: Modern scientists claim that dinosaurs walked the earth hundreds of millions of years ago, long before the first man. They state with ?authority? that such and such a dinosaur lived at such and such a time in some far distant age. This may come as news to you, but credible archaeological evidence seriously undermines this widely accepted theory.

    Modern man began discovering and identifying fossil remains of the major dinosaurs only two or three hundred years ago. Early paleontologists immediately began naming and cataloging these ?terrible lizards.? They also created drawings of the various dinosaurs, guessing what they looked like based on their bone structure.

    However, there are serious problems with the estimated age of dinosaur fossils.

    There exist many examples across the world of 1,000 to 3,000 year old cave drawings, tapestries, and ornate stone engravings depicting scenes of dinosaurs and humans together. These artifacts predate modern man?s discovery of dinosaur fossils by thousands of years and yet show unmistakable depictions of many of the dinosaurs we know today, including stegosaurus, brontosaurus, triceratops, and tyrannosaurus rex.

    The older drawings depict living creatures almost identical to those in the modern artwork, which is based on fossil remains. Some of these ancient artifacts show men fighting dinosaurs and even men being eaten by dinosaurs.

    Also, the Book of Job, believed to be the oldest book in the Bible, contains a detailed, rather fascinating description of a living creature that appears to be a very large dinosaur. The description is not presented in Job as mythical or fictitious, but as that of a real, living creature.

    As for the enormous size of some dinosaur fossils, consider this: In the days prior to the Flood of Noah, we are told that several men lived to be more than 900 years old. If we apply that same kind of lifespan to reptiles, imagine how large and heavy some of those predeluvian creatures would have been. Unlike mammals, reptiles continue to grow during their entire lifespan.

    You probably didn?t see this on a major television network, but in 2005 a fossilized bone of a T-rex was discovered to have soft tissue still inside it. This shocking discovery challenges everything scientists thought they knew about the age of dinosaur fossils. The finding of real soft tissue from a real dinosaur clearly suggests the T-rex bone was not nearly as old as formerly believed.

    There is even a fossilized footprint of a human with a dinosaur footprint on top of the man?s print, clearly demonstrating that at some time in history a dinosaur stepped on a man?s footprint.

    More often than not, modern scientists knowingly place themselves at odds with what the Bible says about the origins of the earth and the beginnings of life. Rather than exploring God?s creation to unlock the mysteries He has hidden there, as scientific pioneers such as Sir Isaac Newton did a few hundred years ago, scientists today often interpret the data they gather so as to disprove obvious realities about God, realities that the Bible says are ?clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.? Creation displays the awesome power of God as well as His infinite intelligence and creativity. Creation is the starting point of all true science.

    In Summary, there is probably no way to know the age of the earth. As we have seen, there are plenty of reasons to doubt the five billion year theory. If dinosaurs and man walked the earth at the same time, as credible evidence suggests, then everything science tells us about geological ages collapses.

    Along this same line, certain sciences routinely employ a type of circular logic to prove questionable points, such as basing the age of geological layers on the fossils found in those layers and basing the age of fossils on the geological layers in which they are found, which taken as a whole proves absolutely nothing.

    On the other hand, the so-called Christian theory that the earth is only 6,000 years old seems unnecessarily restrictive. I would accept the 6,000 year doctrine in a heartbeat, if the Bible taught it, but I don?t think it does. If the sun, which God created to measure years and days, was not created until the fourth day of creation, then the actual length of the earlier days of creation is simply not known, which tells us the earth could be older than 6,000 years, perhaps by a lot.

    And if God created the earth in eternity and not in time, and if time itself did not begin until the sun was created on the fourth day, then all discussion of age prior to that time is meaningless.

    Also, as if to throw a curve ball into the entire discussion, the Apostle Peter wrote almost two thousand years ago that a day with God is as a thousand years and a thousand years are as one day. If the apostle meant that literally, those days of creation could have lasted a thousand years each, making the earth more like twelve thousand years old. If on the other hand, the Apostle used ?a thousand years? simply to mean ?a great quantity,? which is often the case in scripture, then the question remains wide open.

    Frankly, I don?t lose sleep over the age of the earth. It?s an interesting topic for discussion, but what God demands of us regarding the earth is that we acknowledge that this planet and all its living creatures were brought into existence by Him, by his spoken Word. Those who reject that fundamental truth, no matter what title or degree they hold, are not really scientists at all.

  8. Thanks
    John81 got a reaction from 1Timothy115 in Baptist Church Sign Heresies   
    I see these sorts of signs fairly often too. In an effort to be clever or cute, they wind up putting forth that which is false.
    If the saying can't be put forth in a clever or cute way and still be biblical, better to simply put up a message that's biblical.
  9. Like
    John81 got a reaction from swathdiver in Last one to post in this thread wins   
    I was saved in September 1981. It's amazing to look back over the years and notice the hand of God in my life.
  10. Like
    John81 got a reaction from swathdiver in Tips For Single Christian Ladies On Courtship And Love   
    Prayer. Take this to the Lord in prayer continually. That, plus the patience you mentioned, are the most important. One of the biggest problems many Christians have is a lack of patience, especially here in America. This too often leads to going outside God's will and grabbing the first person they can.

    The Lord knows how to bring the right two people together, and at the right time.
  11. Like
    John81 got a reaction from Alan in Revelation chapter 19-22 Study.   
    ​I would think any, or eventually all, of those studies could be beneficial.
    Thank you for this study and your efforts to keep it on track and to not allow it to become derailed.
  12. Thanks
    John81 got a reaction from BabeinChrist in Pervasive Occultism   
    Unfortunately his is something that infects the church nearly as much as the world. It's so common to hear a Christian talk about their horoscope as if it's something to pay attention to. Many Christians read those "Dear Abby" type advice columns as if the words put forth there are some sort of special revelation for life. I hear Christians talking about having seen ghosts and often when someone confronts them with reality, they want to start talking about this or that "real life" ghost show they watched about a real haunted house or something and talk about how real that is.
    For some of these people it can be easy to see how they fall into this stuff, but for so many others it's amazing how these otherwise intelligent people who have been in church for years can fall for this mess. Indeed, many are much more willing to believe in the fakery and all the paranormal than they are what Scripture says. Sadly, one reason for this is they know much more about these tools of the devil than they do of the Word of God.
    As surveys and polls continually indicate, even among professing born again believers in Christ who say they believe the Bible is the Word of God, only a very tiny percentage read their Bible at least once a month. An even smaller percentage say they read their Bible daily. For the rest, the vast majority of these Christians, they say they read the Bible a couple times a year or not at all. From my own experiences this seems to be accurate.
    We are going to believe and follow what we feed our minds. If we are not feeding upon the Word of God regularly, we are feeding upon something else and that's where we will be moving towards.
  13. Thanks
    John81 got a reaction from BabeinChrist in What is Spiritual Warfare?   
    "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" 1 John 5:5
  14. Thanks
    John81 got a reaction from BabeinChrist in Baptist Church Sign Heresies   
    Our church only has a small sign, with room for the service times and such.
    Like NN, I really wonder if some who put up the "witty" sayings on their signs even bother to think about what they put up. Considering the false belief that if one is "good enough" they will go to heaven, it's so dangerous to put up a sign which gives the idea that if one "lives right" they will go to heaven.
    Many people who won't bother to step inside a church will yet read church signs as they drive by. If Scripture or at least something scriptural can't be put forth, leave the sign blank rather than helping the devil with promoting false hope.
  15. Thanks
    John81 got a reaction from BabeinChrist in Baptist Church Sign Heresies   
    I see these sorts of signs fairly often too. In an effort to be clever or cute, they wind up putting forth that which is false.
    If the saying can't be put forth in a clever or cute way and still be biblical, better to simply put up a message that's biblical.
  16. Thanks
    John81 got a reaction from BabeinChrist in No need to Go To Prison___Gay Wedding Vows   
    There are indeed churches which have active sodomite members, but that's totally against Scripture. Other churches are heading in that direction as they have active adulterous members that's totally against Scripture, but they refuse to initiate church discipline. Other churches are so intent upon showing themselves to be pro-women elevate divorced women to positions of leadership and set their churches on course for ruin. All of these are conducting themselves in opposition to Scripture.
    Many pastors will marry anyone just so they can increase their income. That's wrong and should serve as a sign the church needs to correct their pastor or get a new one.
    We should all thank God for those pastors and churches which refuse to compromise in performing marriages for the sake of popularity or money.
  17. Thanks
    John81 got a reaction from Alan in Titus   
    Another problem area in most churches which needs addressed.
    Today there is often the argument of who are "young men"? When the epistle was written, and for nearly 20 centuries afterward, those in what we call their "teens" were considered young men. In today's youth worshiping culture that's no longer the case and this has greatly impacted churches. Even in many churches today the idea of being a child practically until out of high school and then still being considered a youth until well into their 20s or 30s is all too common.
    I've noticed over the past several years many ads for IFB youth camps, retreats and events have taken on a look similar to that of worldly ads for those age groups in that they highlight youthfulness, youthful play, excitement, adventure. Anything regarding Christ, salvation, growth in the Lord, Bible study, prayer, are all in the small print, if mentioned at all in the ads.
    As mentioned previously, it's difficult these days to get mature men in Christ involved with the youth or young men of a church. Some churches even heavily segregate most of the congregation, likely with good intentions but also with some bad consequences. There are groups for "seniors", women's groups, married women groups, single women groups, a men's group that's often more older men, etc. While there can be a place for some of these, such shouldn't come at the expense of separating the boys and young men from the older men.
    Seeing some of the problems we can know what needs to be done but how do we get it done?
    When do we start expecting boys to start acting like young men? How do we get the older men to stop pretending they are 17 or 21 and "cool"? How do we get both groups to take their God given roles seriously?
    Then, how do we get the church moms to agree their "precious little baby boys" (13-18+) should be trained to be young men, be putting childish things behind, taking on more and more adult attitudes, manners and responsibilities? In some cases even the dads have problems in this area.
    Should a high school aged Sunday school or youth group be much more like the pre-high school groups or the adult groups?
    How do we instruct the young men in our churches to be godly young men while treating them like larger sized children?
    Even with my own children it's been a tough job because they would get one message at home (along the biblical lines in this study) but would get contrary messages everywhere else; often even in church. I actually had a neighbor accuse me of child abuse because my two sons, about 7 and 12 at the time, were helping me rake leaves in our yard! That's how many think these days, even in our churches.
    I'm 100% for parents and churches instructing, training and bringing up children and young men and women in accord with Scripture. This should be a natural extension of helping to lead our children to salvation in Christ and discipleship.
  18. Thanks
    John81 got a reaction from eswarden in Why King James Only?   
    ​The Lord deals with His people according to His perfect wisdom and timing. I was a follower of Christ for nearly a decade before the Lord brought the matter of a Bible version to my attention. One day, as clear as can be, the Holy Ghost directed me to the KJB, and I wasn't even considering the matter at the time. Even so, the direction was so clear I got a KJB and the Word opened to me like never before and I've used the KJB ever since.
    I know some fine men of God who use other Bible versions, some of which I find so watered down and/or hard to understand it's amazing to me they can walk with God so closely using them. All things are possible with God! The Bible they use is, ultimately, between them and God. I'll share with them how the Lord directed me. I'll share with them some of the ways I've found the KJB to be superior to the NIV (or whatever version they use). I'll show them resources or share web links on the subject. At that point, it's still between them and God. I certainly won't dismiss them as unbelievers when they exhibit the fruits of salvation.
    The Bible one reads from doesn't prove, or make, them a true or false believer. Just as there are many true believers who don't use the KJB, there are also many false believers who do use the KJB. Our salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone.
  19. Thanks
    John81 got a reaction from eswarden in Patriotism   
    Growing up in a very rural, small town there wasn't any hippies or war protestors around here. Thankfully I was spared from being dosed with much liberal propaganda from that era until I was much older and able to rightly evaluate it.
    The veterans in this town, from WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, (and later the other wars) were always respected, equally accepted and equally honored.
    America isn't perfect, isn't the greatest nation in every category (more-so back then than now), but America is my home, the land of my birth, the nation both sides of my family have called home for generations, and I love America no matter how many warts she's developed.
    Our neighbor lost both his legs to "friendly fire" in Vietnam. He could have been bitter, could have blamed America for spending the rest of his life in a wheelchair, but he chose not to. He didn't agree with everything involving that war but he proudly served and never shied away from proclaiming himself as a Vietnam veteran. He died several years ago and his son now lives in his former home.
    I'm not sure what the above references to Israel have to do with the topic of America and Vietnam, but I've been a "fan" of and supporter of Israel since I was a young child. That's never changed, not even when I had several very anti-Semitic friends in university for a few years.
    Every nation will one day be judged by the Lord. The best we can do in the meantime is do what we can to help as many people as possible come to Christ.
  20. Thanks
    John81 got a reaction from eswarden in Church Covenants: Yes or No?   
    What were the requirements to join the church exampled in Scripture?
    From what I've noticed, without doing an exhaustive study at this time, there were only two requirements.
    Being saved (born again), followed by baptism, added to the church.
    After being added to the church members received preaching, teaching and instruction (as well as examples) of what they should know, how they should live, etc.
  21. Thanks
    John81 got a reaction from eswarden in Why King James Only?   
    That "stood the test of time" is a very important factor and one that most KJB detractors have a difficult time trying to deal with. That's why they will most often ignore and steer clear of the 400 year track record of success only the KJB has and instead argue that the language is "archaic" and "nOBody can understand it".
    Interesting to consider that young children used to learn to read using the KJB but today it's claimed neither high school or college graduates can understand the KJB. I would say that's an indictment against the education system, not the KJB.
    I see now they are promoting the MEV as being the newest and best Bible today. That's the same thing they said previously about the ESV, NIV and so many others. How long before yet another MV is deemed necessary for the sake of publishers profits?
  22. Thanks
    John81 got a reaction from Saved41199 in Salvation Confusion   
    Biblical repentance isn't a turning from sin(s) per se, it's a turning away from a life against God to a life of believing and following God. Biblical repentance is about turning from doing things our own way to accepting Christ as Saviour and Lord.
    In so doing there is a repentance of sin but it's not turning from specific sins such as gossip or adultery that saves; it's the repentance of turning from self to God and accepting His free gift of salvation that sets us in right standing with the Lord.
  23. Thanks
    John81 got a reaction from eswarden in The King James Only Controversy by James White   
    This is the typical approach of those who seek discredit the KJB. First, they claim to like the KJB, often claiming it's a good translation, but from that point on virtually everything they say contradicts their opening claim. How can they believe the KJB is a good translation which they like if they find it to be filled with flaws and additions of men?
    The claims of the "obvious additions" are constantly stated as if fact yet no facts are presented to support this claim. Supposition and speculation is all they have. As pointed out above, often the only basis they have for claims of latter additions to the manuscripts is because they don't think a particular verse makes sense to them. If they encounter a portion of writing in other works they can't grasp how it fits there do they believe someone else added it to that writing at a later date?
    In arguing the KJB contains non-inspired verses they are saying the KJB is flawed and therefore unreliable, whether they admit it or not. As well, by pointing to one or more MVs as being accurate where they claim the KJB to be inaccurate they are in effect claiming the MVs to be superior to the KJB. Taken to its ultimate conclusion their claims can only lead to the position that the KJB is not the inspired Word of God but a man polluted text while their preferred MVs, which they claim get things right, must be the actual inspired Word of God. (Unless, of course, they happen to be of those who claim none of our translations are the preserved Word of God. In that case, they claim the KJB is a lesser translation while their MVs are closer to the pure Word of God.)
    In their attacks against the KJB they conveniently ignore their MVs don't agree with one another, often to the point of great contradiction, and therefore their MVs (at the least many of them) must be flawed themselves.
    It's clear authors such as this have the intent of disparaging of the KJB coupled with the the promotion of MVs based upon their own "reasoning" alone; no facts involved.
  24. Thanks
    John81 got a reaction from Genevanpreacher in 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:   
    Your view of this makes me sad. The God of Scripture is active in our lives today as He was yesterday and will be tomorrow.
  25. Thanks
    John81 got a reaction from 19DuggarFan in Hebrews 6   
    Which would be false teaching. Hebrews 6 isn't talking about the saved losing salvation; which is impossible.
  • Create New...