Jump to content
Online Baptist Community


Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Alimantado

  1. Hi Pastor Markle, I've just read your summary of your word study and I found it edifying and inspirational. Hope you don't mind me jumping in with a question, actually I guess a repeat of something you posed near the beginning: what do you think is the specific reason for the translator's choosing the phrase "that which pertaineth unto" in Deut 22:5 and not any of the eleven words you have listed, including 'armour'?
  2. You do make me smile when you reply to posts 5-6 months later, Invicta. :) Anyway, thanks for clarifying.
  3. I still check in very occasionally. Good to see you again, PastorJ. Was it late 2000s when you were here last? If I recall correctly, back then OB had well over 50 active, daily contributors making something like 100 new posts per day (John81 alone was adding about 10 of those). I remember the 'Current News' and 'Lounge' sections were so busy that new posts would drop off the bottom within a day or so and I used to browse by section and thread because it wasn't realistic to view by recent activity--just too much. On a given thread I'd sometimes have to go back a couple of pages to pick up where I'd left off. Now the activity level is a dozen or so regular folk and half-a-dozen posts per day, maybe up to 50 per week. It must, at least, partly be down to general trends in web usage, for mailing lists, forums and chatrooms have declined and disappeared all over. Of course, on OB as it once was, the theological/doctrinal discussions were just a subset of all the activity and the spectrum of members was broader, maybe a bit more like church, with all that brings. I expect some would say that God has blessed this forum by ending its heady days and keeping the wheat, but I do rather miss those busier times. I hope this forum is still a blessing to many, since there are always more reading than writing. And thanks to Matt for keeping it running.
  4. There are plenty of rules like that here in UK. For example, if you want to drive a car it has to meet structural requirements and be tested annually by authorised garages--you can't just cobble together anything and take it on the roads. If you build a house there are materials you're not allowed to use, like asbestos. If a hospital wants to offer surgery its surgeons have to be qualified--they can't just hire someone who likes scalpels and blood. Want to keep a brown bear at home as a pet? Nope. There are rules in UK which I think are over-regulation but I think the gas one is reasonable because of the higher risk of injuring/killing neighbours (compared to electrical and plumbing, for which there aren't equivalent restrictions). Every year there are reports of houses blown up in gas explosions, though from what I recall the last few haven't taken anybody out.
  5. Necropost of the year I think! And bonus points for replying to yourself. ;)
  6. Oh yes it does! And here's one for when you come back with another 'no it doesn't': oh yes it does!
  7. At least pastors are allowed unruly pets.
  8. Ok, so in other words the Bible gives us the model of how churches ought to be planted by other legitimate NT churches, but if it ends up because of history or necessity that a church hasn't quite followed that model then it doesn't necessarily make it illegitimate and therefore the seeker should concern themselves with what said church is doing now. Is that fair? Or should concern themselves 'first and foremost' might be more accurate a summary... (just added)
  9. The point of the 'argument' is what's an individual seeking a church to do? Not pointless--it's a direct question about a practical matter. The profit of answering that question might be that it helps those seeking churches with what they should be looking for and what they should be doing. The question of what a potential church ought to do when being founded is a separate but related question--in fact it's what your other thread is for, isn't it Dave?
  10. That is why I asked the question I did earlier. If a church can only be a church when started by another NT church then that suggests--although one might disagree--that you could have a church that's totally sound in belief, teachings and practice but still be illegitimate. So if a person seeking a new church can't tell the difference between a legitimate NT church and an illegitimate one by what a church is doing then does it become necessary when seeking a church to research their origins? And it that's so then how far back? DaveW has said he doesn't want that question answered on this thread in case it distracts so here's a new thread for that question.
  11. So Victory Heights Baptist would have a person join as a member before they were baptised in water? So let's imagine a new believer--that believer would join Victory Baptist and then the pastor might speak to them about water baptism further down the line. That sort of thing? I haven't encountered that before.
  12. Right, but the teaching you quoted was discussing an "organised assembly". So if a local Baptist church required prospective members to be baptised before becoming members, that would be unBiblical in your opinion. And in your own church (I think elsewhere you said you are a pastor of one--sorry if I'm wrong), you allow people to become members before they are baptised. Are both those statements of mine fair?
  13. The context of this bit of the discussion is this statement by you, SFIC: The teaching you disagree with speaks of an "organised assembly". So would you agree with the teaching if it said this instead: "A church is an organized assembly of scripturally baptized believers and non-baptised believers, called out to do the Lord's work according to the New Testament."
  14. This is a fork of the discussion thread here. The question and context are above--happy to hear any thoughts from folk. Ta, Carl
  15. And anyway the UK, probably minus Scotland and Northern Ireland, will be the 51st state.
  16. Surely USA's spending on South Korea comes close to Israel, maybe even more? And NATO, i.e. Europe. Most of all would be USA's spending in the two world wars. According to the interwebs, California is one of those states that does pay its own way.
  17. A related question--happy to move it to a new thread if needs be--that occurs to me is how diligent should somebody be about researching this information if they're thinking about attending/joining a church. I hear plenty of good advice about checking a church's teachings and practice, and indeed it should be easy to find out who they are fellowshipping with at the time, but finding out how that church started if it's, say, 150 years old might be quite difficult (I've never even tried). And then do you check that the church that established it was in turn established by a New Testament church 50-100 years further back and so on and so on...? Obviously nobody can trace a lineal timeline back 2,000 years, but how far is sufficient?
  18. Gotta say that's a neat way to direct condescending remarks at people and sidestep censure. No if someone told me my opinions were silly/stupid/idiotic or whatever, I'd take that as them calling me silly/stupid/idiotic. Perhaps I shouldn't admit that--now folk know how to get at me. ;-)
  19. When was this in force? I can't find anything about it.
  20. Perhaps Bro Matt should start a crypto-currency: OBCoin.
  21. What if you purchased that gold or silver using money in the first place? If you don't own the gold (according to your definition) do you still own what you buy with it? And what if you had inherited the gold, but the person you inherited it from had purchased it with money... I don't know much about taxes, but I think in UK the overall rule is as simple as: the state gets to tax us because we're the queen's subjects. Someone told me once that even if you own a property, i.e. have the freehold, it still ultimately belongs to the Crown. I wonder how much wealth the Queen gets every year from gobbling up the estates of those who die with no inheritors.
  22. BabeinChrist, do you have any thoughts on my slight revision of your story (in bold)?
  23. Ok, so going back to what I said earlier then: "And as for the Catholic church you attend, at some point you went through a fairly lengthy process of becoming a member that involved signing up to a load of doctrines, yes?" You addressed this question by saying you weren't a convert, but can we now say that yes you did go through a process of learning and then professing belief in various creeds/doctrinal statements? And that your being confirmed as a member was conditional on professing those beliefs? Now you say you don't know whether the chief priest or whatever would question your membership of the church if he knew you've since ditched some of those beliefs that were a condition of your being confirmed as a member. I suggest maybe he would. As for the Baptist church you go to, it sounds like folk 'self certify' and then they ask as few questions as possible. But I do wonder, if I asked to joined that church and I did as you did--told them that Jesus was my Lord and Saviour and made a public profession of it--and then it came out later, let's say over a cup of coffee with Pastor Steve, that when I'd said 'Jesus' I'd been referring to a giraffe at London zoo called 'Jesus', whether that would cause Pastor Steve to question my being a member of that church. And if the answer to that is yes, I wonder if other things, like being a member of a second church with very different doctrines, would be cause for concern in Steve's mind.
  • Create New...