Jump to content
Online Baptist Community


Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Calvary

  1. '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>> Notice: Calvary and I will be representing the Pre-Tribulation Rapture position, which is also the official position of the Online Baptist Forum. There are a number of things that we agree with Pastor Totten on. We agree that there are good men who hold to both positions and that it is not necessary to separate over this issue. We also agree that the chief task given to us is to evangelize the lost world. Calvary, Pastor Totten, and I have agreed to keep this debate in a civilized manner. We have also agreed that when we get to a position where we must agree to disagree, the debate will be over. We agree that this is not about winning or losing, but about showing a clear presentation of when the rapture will occur. Thank you, Goodbye.
  2. Old - You cant ascertain the context either, at least not on this post, I don´t know what youre bellyaching about. Calvinism is a rotten heresy and it's promoted here all the time. OB doctrinal statement includes a pre trib pre millenial position, MIke does not hold to it, though he is certainly free to choose his eschatology, this board has a stated position, so.... Talebearing is repeating a lie told by someone else, it's also called gossip. Mike did not find those quotes himslef but relied upon a secondary source and fell into the trap of publickly stating a matter to be thus when it was not so, as any reading of the context of those quotes would have shown, IF HE HAD ACTUALLY READ THE MATERIAL instead of merely quoting a slanderer. I also know that Mike is not malicious about it, but I was simply making a point. God bless you Mike, calvary
  3. Mike, I have to concurr with Steve, he is spot on. I have the book you quoted, or should I say, requoted... Dr Ruckman has made clear time and time again in context exactly what he means when he uses the term "The Greek", it is a text that merely exists in the minds of Bible correcting fools as they can no more produce "The Greek" than you can. There is no such thing. If you actually read any of his books you would have known that. Stick to your own personal study and leave old Cloud out in the clouds Mike. So this is it?? No context whatsoever, no answer to me whatsoever and prOBably no apologies for slandering another Christian. Matt, this is why your site is dead. You allow blatant heretics to teach their rotten calvinism and to the praise of several here who should know better and you allow a mod to operate who does not accept the doctrinal position of this board. You either need to get a spine Matt or change the doctrinal statement. Thanks Steve, you hit right on the head. No need to find any context Mike, since that book you re quoted from someone else (which the BIble calls tale bearing or gossip) isn't available any more in that edition. That was 1970, and has since been edited down in 1997. Bye now - you stop telling lies Mike, you are a mod don't ya know!
  4. Stop mischaracterizing Dr. Ruckman's position. I get so tired of uniformed people putting a doctrine in the mouth of a man. And it isn't just "Ruckman" he has earned his doctrates unlike many pulp mill professors in the IFB colleges. Can you please post the context of your information where, when and why he may have said the AV was better than the "originals" which no one here has ever seen yet seem to act like they exisit..... MIke, you started with " " on your opening statement, thereby atributting your statement to Dr Ruckman, I for one would like to see that direct quote from Dr Ruckman.
  5. Hello. 46 people have read this request and not one can offer any advice?
  6. Can I have my thread John Calvin had it all wrong moved over to an area that is open to everyone? God bless, calvary
  7. "Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a "discussion" with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently argue that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutey doesn't/can't include at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights?" As I said, you will not find any citation from anywhere. You asked for documentation, I merely stated that it most likely does not exist, and if it does, it would be not be vetted. Perhaps you´ve forgotten what you asked for. Seems to me you are in fact looking for outside sourcing to the effect of a statement supporting the 6th day Crucifixion folks. Again, it most likely does not exist. Try Nexus Index. Or can you google? Not rocket science. God bless, calvary
  8. Sorry OP, you still haven´t had your question answered. I would think that there probably is no literature available that would give you what you ask. All citations to the effect that a partial day is still as good as a whole day will come from the very sources that cite it as definitive. In other words, it´s a circle of citation. One writer states the claim as factual, and the next quotes the first author. There is no vetting. And then you have a construct of a fact based upon the writing of someone whose statement was never verified. Try the Nexus Index. God bless, calvary
  9. They are Still Waiting by Dr Charles Keen
  10. It's like this: "New editions of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible are still in print (in 2007). Additionally, other authors have used Strong's numbers in concordances of other Bible translations, such as the New International Version and American Standard Version. These are often also referred to as Strong's Concordances. New editions of Strong's may exclude the comparative section (1611 KJV to 1614) and the asterisks that denote differential definitions of the same Hebrew or Greek words; due perhaps to denominational considerations, definitions may also be altered." "Not every distinct word is assigned a number, but only the root words." I am referring to the apparatus, not the listing. God bless, calvary
  11. Strong's is not KJB keyed, Young's Analytical Concordance is in my opinion the best Concordance available. It has a great lexicon in the back that allows you to find cross refs that otherwise you wouldn't have found. By listing the verses in the KJB that a Greek or Hebrew word is found, you can find verses that shed light on other verses although they do not carry the exact English word. The Young's is keyed to the KJB. The Young's does not carry every article, therefore it is not a concise Concordance as is Strong's, but Young's Concordance was designed to be a pastor's Concordance who is using the Concordance for BIBLE study, NOT WORD studies. I have always thought that Vincent's Word Studies was about the most boring work I ever had the displeasure of using. Word studies bore down, down and then down until there is no where to go. Young's was designed for the pastor, not the layman. God bless, calvary
  12. I opted for local church as my "clearing house", no Mission Board. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't get one or get one. What works for some may not work for others. Take heed unto THY ministry. Much of the advice I got from a book someone gave me years ago. Don't have it any more, but it was a pastor in Oregon, Mike Miller or something like that. God bless, calvary
  13. Hi - I am by no means an expert, but as a church p;planting missionary (foreign field so there will be cultural diffs) I have started a few churches. 1. Pray lots. 2. Pray some more. 3 Get to work on a plan that has simple defined steps. 4. Do NOT make it complicated. 5. Do NOT whine. 6. NEVER complain about the difficulties in "your field" as compared to someone else. I would suggest that pastorj "old school" method has the best benefits and results that will encourage you. 1. Canvas the area for 2 things. a) a place to meet - I think your own house is a BIG negative, and to get a feel for the folks 2. Plan a blitz of propaganda. 3. Plan a meeting in the midst of the blitz (put the time on your flyer, the palce and serve refreshements) 4. This meeting is a "Get to know us" meeting. a. A short video perhaps of other ministry experience you have b. Various ministries you plan to execute c. Talk up the need for a church like yours d. Do NOT tell folks there is no good church in your area (nothing worse than "bashing religions" of folks in the minds of the people you desire to reach) e. DO Tell them that finally a church that cares, a church that loves, a church that desires to make an impact in the lives of every day people LIKE THEM is coming to town. f. Have an invitation @ this meeting. g. Recruit others to help you hand out flyers in your area. h. Serve food. i. Do NOT preach @ this meeting. MOTIVATE..., POSITIVE.... POSITIVE... POSITIVE!! j. Hand out more flyers - NICE FULL COLOR CARD STOCK FLYERS (do NOT go cheap on the publicity) HAVE A SECOND GET TO KNOW ME MEETING A FEW DAYS BEFORE YOUR GRAND OPENING repeat the steps of the first mtng. List a hundred ministries on a large white board. think BIG I have done this 6 times in my life, and the results are varied but sure. MINIMUM 10,000 flyers. In Campeche we handed out 8500 flyers and our 1st get to know (GTKU) mtng had around 40, the 2nd another 40, Grand Opening 107 in church. In Quintana Roo we handed out 10,000 flyers 1st GTKU mtng 25, 2nd 30 or so, Grand Opening 124 in church - that church plant started 3 other churches in rural areas. In Yucatan, we handed out 20,000 flyers 1st GTKU mtng 8 people showed!! The 2nd 5!!!???? Grand Opening 147 in church - who is sufficient for these things!? IMHO only, I think it better to get a bunch and work with the ones you can. Generally you have 80% of them for a year. They never were faithful to their old church and they simply won't stick with you either. But use the resources God gives you while you can. Disciplining people is a process, and I try to have at least 4 or 5 men or couples @ a time to disciple in homes. My wife has 4 or 5 ladies all the time. If you try to have one family at a time you will be in for a very slow process. 1 hour a week with 4 or 5 men or women or couples (however it works out) goes far better than one couple a week. If you cannot get the man, then send your wife to disciple the wife. If you cannot get the wife in the study, then keep after the man. Don't try to get the perfect couple that will be your right hand man for ever. Just try to disciple a few so that in 6 - 8 months you can recruit some SS teachers, Jr. Church workers etc. Ok, enough. God bless, God speed, calvary
  14. Thank you John. I tried to look at what you asked, How this passage applies to our lives? I'm guessing you already knew that chapter 9-11 are about the great question What relationship does the Jew now have with the church, with the promises of God and his future delaing with Jehovah. Alan Carr has a web site called Sermon Notebook. There you'll find hundreds of good messages. He has a series on Romans, there are 4 really good practical messages in there on this parenthetical section of Romans. I always prefer application to theology. ... God bless, calvary
  15. Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Romans 9:21 Firstly, God made us as a son of Adam as we were made in the image of Adam. That placed us under a curse. As far as our responsibility is concerned that actually means nothing. No man can use the fact that he is born a sinner to reject Christ. Paul said, “now commandeth ALL men EVERY WHERE to repent (Acts 17). Notice that vs. 21 -23 does not take place in eternity as the Calvinists teach. “Shall the thing formed…” Nothing was formed before Genesis 1:1 “Hath not the potter power over the clay…” There is no clay that is formed by the potter until Genesis 2:7. There are no eternal decrees of election or reprobation in the passage. What God makes, He makes in time, what God forms He forms in time. What we have in verse 20 is a fully formed vessel speaking to the potter. That vessel was formed in time, not eternity past. Notice with me some things we need to know First - The purpose of the vessel is never etched unchangeably in stone by the Potter. Paul speaks of vessels unto honour and vessels unto dishonor. If you couldn’t change your status from that of dishonor to one of honour that would be one thing. But what does 2 Tim 2:20, But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. IF A MAN PURGE HIMSELF from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. So your status as a vessel of either honour or no depends upon what you do with the things that defile you. Second - The potter can change His mind as He is forming the vessel and make another vessel. Jeremiah 18:3-4, Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: The Potter did not mar it Himself. So he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. What is the application? O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? God can take a marred vessel and make a new, better vessel out of it. The difference is obedience. Jeremiah 18:7-8, At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. Thirdly – The potter can take a good vessel and break it and throw it in the garbage. That is what happens in Jeremiah 19:1, 10. The reason had nothing whatsoever to do with “God willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known”. It was because the vessel had forsaken God. Jeremiah 19:4, Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place… So when it comes to what kind of vessel God makes of us, he does it with our participation. Therefore! The sinner has no right to accuse God by saying, Why hast thou made me thus? At any time the sinner could repent and changed the God made the vessel. The problem with Calvinism is that he bases his theology on a supposition. He goes to verse 22 to show that God reprobates some men to Hell, and he goes to verse 23 to show that God elects some men to Heaven. The sentence of verse 22, 23, and 24 all begin with WHAT IF! What a dumb place to begin your theology! What if He didn’t!!?? Ever thought of that!? The Calvinist in their eagerness to rid themselves of their responsibility towards God have overlooked the fact that every vessel born on this earth is under the wrath of God until that vessel receives Christ (John 3:18,36) EVERYBODY is born a vessel of wrath. The real truth in this passage is in answering the question What if? We can do that later. God bless, calvary
  16. I told you he teaches that regeneration is a separte act from salvation. He won't see what he just said, but there it is in black and white. That is classic Calvinism. Rubbish is what it is. God bless, calvary
  17. A warning carries a conditional phrase, like IF... you do this or IF you do that THEN... A perfect Bible example is that of Cain and God's WARNING to him in Genesis 4. Sounds as if you still smart over the simple example of a man overriding God's decree by simply exercising his free will. You and I do that on a daily basis. Believe it. There is no will of God that forces a man to do anything, much less recieve the pardon of sins through Jesus Christ. Typical calvinist hack. God bless, calvary
  18. Hey brother. Covenant man is saying that the Holy Ghost regenerates you BEFORE you can obey Romans 10. Get it? True Reformed, Calvinism, or classic reformed theology places regeneration before salvation due to their chronology of events. According to the Calvinists (sorry for labeling Covenant, but it is what it is) you are dead in sins, a dead man therefore cannot call upon the Lord unless he has been quickened, hence, regeneration of and by the H.S must occurr prior to the awakened conscience, mind, heart, etc ... can "call upon the name of the Lord" He'll deny this of course. But that's it in a nutshell. Typically the reformed class don't like their positions being boiled down to a simple analysis like that. One of the clearest Biblical examples of free will overiding the decrees of God is found in David. 1 Samuel 23 David inquires of God to find His will on a matter. "Will Saul come down, as thy servant heard?" The Lord said "He will come down". (And he did come down) David inquires, "Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul?" God says, THEY WILL deliver thee up. They don't. They didn't. David simply used his free will and changed the outcome. Which is what sinners do every day on both sides of the coin. Some deny God's eternal decrees about the destiny of a sinner by repenting and recieving Christ. Others deny God's will by rejecting His love and forgivenenss and thereby end up in hell, which was never His will for them. So, man's free will acts and violates God's will daily. To the reformed their error lies in equating God's eternal decress, the sovereignity of God and His will as all a concrete, inflexible unthwartable action. Thus, the "Irresistible Grace" nonesense. The "predestinated unto... " foolishness. And most notably, the idea that the unregenerate cannot inquire of the Lord, cannot have any understanding of their condition prior to regeneration or any ability to of their own accord to fleee to the loving arms of a God who desires to save them. Too bad this thread went the way of another usless debate on "Calvinism" God bless, calvary
  19. The essence of the entire message of Ten Shekels and a Shirt, is the 7 minutes or so on the audio clip. But you nailed it, say a prayer and everything will be great! The message was more an indictment upon the preaching establishment that had shifted the purpose of preaching the gospel to satisfy men rather than God. I don't think it was meant so much as a rebuke for anyone who came to Christ under that styled preaching. The "soul winners fundamentalism" style of preaching. At least that is how I've understood that message all these years. God bless, calvary
  20. @ Seth: Good post. Concerning the OP God did not send his son to die for mankind in order to get glory. I think that is a completely provable false statement. You might want to rethink that one. What do we do with John12:28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. or John17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: To think that the end goal of God is to make you happy is just what the short sound clip was talking about. It's humanism. Christ DID die for the "happiness" of man. That is not humanism it is bible. John 3:16 should prove that as do many other scriptures. I am interested in hearing how John 3:16 is speaking of my happiness in a more direct way instead of some derivative way. I thought that John 3:16 would speak more directly to the way in which God has loved us, through the death of His Son, who by His death has glorified the Father. The audio clip did not deny that men can have peace, joy, love, and all other things that men desire. It simply stated that the goals of preaching the gospel has changed much over the generations, from lifting up the greatness of God to appealing to the satisfaction of man's basic needs, which is of course man centered. Interesting repsonses. God bless. calvary
  21. The premise of what this holiness preacher of old is speaking. He is Paris Reidhead, and was a Missionary and Christian Alliance preacher/missionary to Africa. God bless, calvary
  22. Lev 10:3; Is 26:15; Is 44:23; Is 49:3; Is 60:20; Is 61:3; Is 66:5; Ez 28:22; Ez 39:13; Hag 1:8; Mat 9:8; Mat 15:31; Mark 2:12; Lk 4:15; Lk 5:26; Lk 7:16; Lk 23:47; Jn 7:39; Jn 11:4; Jn 12:16; Jn 12:28; Jn 15:8; Jn 17:14; Jn 17:10; Acts 3:13; Acts 4:21; Acts 21:20; Gal 1:24; 2 Th 1:10; 2 Th 1:12; 1 Pet 4:11; 1 Pet 4:14 Gee I don't know. I guess out of thin air. Wow. Some folks will defend their foolishness to the extreme. God's glorification in our lives, in the world, in the universe and in eternity. That's what it's all about ultimately. In the end there is nothing else worth doing. If it isn't glorfying God, then what is it? God bless
  23. Smells calvinistic? The glory of God is a calvinistic doctrine? Since when? Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; That's up in eternity. God being glorified by every class of person. Rev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; Rev 7:10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. Rev 7:11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, Rev 7:12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen. That's up in eternity. God being glorified by all. He is to be glorified. That ain't calvinism my friend, that's simple BIble. Your supposed heretic hunting falls flat. Calvinsim smalvinism, the BIble is clear that God eternal desires are to be glorified by His creation. That''s not baptist dogma or reformed theology, that is simply quoting the BIble. Wow, and you somehow found fault with it? Takes all kinds to make a world. God bless, calvary
  24. I don't know why you would take my post and then make it a rant against Calvinism. I never inidcated anything about the tenants of John Calvin. I posted over 20 verses however that clearly state that God is in fact concerned about His glory. I never offered any singular purpose as to why, that is your conjecture and caviling. I am convinced that God is passionate about His glory. I am convinced of that because that is what the Bible tells me, not what some "they" convinced me of. To me your statements appear as if God is as one dimensional as you are. There are a myriad of things the Lord care about. His glory being one of them. My joy? Sure. But I am not convinced that that is His principle purpose. I am at a loss over your argument. No one even suggested that God doesn't care for our joy, our lives, our fellowship... etc. You made it a straw man and then argued against your own construct. Wow. God bless. calvary
  25. And your point is? Is reknown something other than make known? Are you saying I am at fault in something I said? What is the point of taking issue with what has been said on this thread thus far? What exactly are taking issue with? Did someone say that God is not interested in having communion with His creation? Was it suggested that the Lord is one dimensional and can only have one purpose above all others? What is the real problem with God desiring worship? What is it that is bothering you about the scriptural fact that the Lord desires the fame of His glory be declared amongst the nations? God bless, Calvary
  • Create New...