DaveW

Many years ago I came across a sermon an IB preacher named Gary Dice when he visited Australia, and from memory he was preaching on this passage, or at least referencing it. He sang a slightly silly song about this section of Romans 7, but I have never been able to find any reference to it anywhere else. I would appreciate it if anyone has heard of it and could give me a reference or link to it, or best case, the sheet music. I know there are many songs that come up when you do a google search, but none of them have been the one I am looking for. It has the words almost direct from the KJV, not just something loosely based on that text. Thanks folks.

We have an adult Bible study at 9.30am, main service at 10.15am, evening service at 6pm, prayer meeting Wednesday night. Evening service and prayer meeting are poorly attended, but as we have our own building it costs us nothing to have a service for 9 or 10 people. Only the morning service is well attended. The number of services and the times of those services are not important, but my personal view has always been that you should be in the house of the Lord as often as you can. I don't understand people who ask why they should be in every service..... my question to them is always "Why wouldn't you want to be in every service you can?" Psalms 122 1 A Song of degrees of David. I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the LORD. (My annual post is now done! )

I rarely post here now, but someone who makes out that he knows everything but makes such a basic, simple mistake, warrants a post. A Single Post. Act 11:25-26 (25) Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: (26) And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. Saul was a the church at Antioch for a full year. From there they went to the church at Jerusalem. Then they returned from Jerusalem Act 12:25 (25) And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark. They returned... to Antioch. Where Saul (Paul) was in the church at Antioch and named as one of the preachers. Act 13:1 (1) Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. Then Barnabas and Saul were sent out from...... Antioch. Act 13:2-3 (2) As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. (3) And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So Barnabas and Saul went out and started a whole bunch of churches, and eventually returned to..... Antioch. Act 14:26-28 (26) And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. (27) And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. (28) And there they abode long time with the disciples. After a time - actually a "long time" at Antioch, they had reason to go to the church at Jerusalem: Act 15:2-3 (2) When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. (3) And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. And they were "brought on their way by the church" - would this be the church at Antioch that sent them to Jerusalem to figure out the doctrinal issues that had come to their attention? The church that Barnabas and Saul were a part of apparently? After all had a good chat, the church at Jerusalem sent Barnabas and Saul - and a few new mates - back to..... Antioch! of all places.... Then, after they had been back at the church in Antioch for a while, Barnabas and Paul decided to head out and see how the churches they started before were going. Act 15:35-40 (35) Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also. (36) And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. (37) And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. (38) But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. (39) And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; (40) And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. Now of course, Barnabas and Saul had a disagreement, and decided to make two separate journeys, and this time Silas went with Paul - and note that they were recommended by the Brethren - which brethren are we speaking about specifically? I think that would be the brethren at the church of ANTIOCH. Even after this, Paul dropped back in to Antioch: Act 18:22 (22) And when he had landed at Caesarea, and gone up, and saluted the church, he went down to Antioch. The point of this is, that for someone to say that Paul had no "home church" shows either an extraordinary ignorance of the book of Acts, or a wilful misrepresentation of the fact for their own purposes. Of course Paul had a home church - the Church at Antioch is where he served on several occasions, it is the church from which his missionary journeys were based, and it was the church that he returned to at the end of his various missions. To get something so obviously basic incorrect gives reason to doubt his general information. Aside from the fact that he has misquoted verses, indicating that they are KJV when they are clearly not - this is deliberate deceit, and it shows that he knows he is required to use KJV but REFUSES to do so, showing a disrespect for both the Word of God and for this board. And there will be no reply - I will not fuss with an argument on this board (and will likely not even check back for a week or so at best anyway. Say what you will about me - I don't care.)

Put that old friend on the bookshelf and visit it every so often.

Thank you to Linda for providing the information along the way - to think of others at a time such as this is a testimony to your love and care. Thanks also to Happy and the forum for allowing a place for this. A man such as this who was always an encouragement in the Lord to those who knew him, and in my case (and many others here) I knew him only online, both here and via email, but the friendship was nonetheless real. His voice on this forum will be greatly missed, and his contact with me will be missed greatly also. Regards, David

I would be there if there was any way possible, but alas, travelling from WA is not possible for me at the moment.

I didn't realise how appropriate this song would be. The Lord may soon take you home brother, and this song will be yours. Praise the Lord that His promises are sure.

Linda, although we never met, I have for many years counted Jim as close friend. I will continue in prayer for you at this time, and also for Brother Jim. The Lord's will be done, and His peace for you. Thank you for sharing with us. Dave.

Thanks for this info - I had been wondering. Please pass on my love to Mrs JimAlaska - it would take forever for a letter to get there from here. For Mrs Jim, I know Brother Jim would love this version. We are praying over here in Western Australia also.

Jim, this is one that he wrote himself. Next time someone accuses you of only liking the "old Hymns" you can tell them that you also like some "Modern songs" - like this one written in 2019 (I think). Pay attention to the words....

Hab 2:1 (1) I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower, and will watch to see what he will say unto me, and what I shall answer when I am reproved.

1Co 2:4-5 (4) And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: (5) That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Heb 4:12 (12) For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Without wanting to argue with this guy - there is no point arguing with a man such as this - I will point out a few things: After my initial post in this thread, where I stated that Bible truth is truth, He refused to acknowledge that the Bible has absolute truths but instead manoeuvred around the point to state that all sorts of groups believe what they follow is Bible truth. In doing so, he promotes the point of view that the Bible has no absolute truths, but only perceived truths. This aligns with his presented "bible studies", which are all about perception and "interpretation". Then after my second post he first states only his opinion (and the opinions of others) that Junia is a female name. He is relying on the convention in Greek that male names end in a consonant and female names end in a vowel. But this is the ONLY evidence that can be presented and it is not a 100% certainty. As displayed by for instance.... Aquila.... who is married to Priscilla. Act 18:2 (2) And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them. Apparently, because of the surrounding language Aquila is a man ("His wife"), but if we insist that the regular convention be 100% consistent then this couple would fit right into today's societal redefinitons. (He will probably use this in his next book as a proof of alternative lifestyles being promoted in the Bible). Further, he discards the word "kinsmen" as being generic and non-gendered, because it suits his argument, however the Bible uses two words, and these are clearly used according to whether only men are referred to or more generically, a group of people which could include women. Luk 2:44 (44) But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. Luk 21:16 (16) And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. The only use of "kinsman/men being in dispute being this one referring to Junia, which is only in dispute because people WANT Junia to be a female name, WITH NO EVIDENCE of such. He also admits that husband and wife are inherently masculine and inherently feminine but the sidesteps that entirely to force the verse to be irrelevant with a side argument which is not relevant to the discussion. In doing so, he makes the Word of God to none effect with humanistic reasonings, again emphasising the point that he has no regard to what the Word of God actually says. This man has constantly and consistently ignored what the Bible actually says in order to redefine, re-understand, reinterpret, and simply outright ignore what the Word of God actually says. He does this in every thread he has posted or participated in (as far as I can see), and he has come onto an Independent Baptist forum to make merchandise of the Lord (he promoted his books aggressively until he was told he was not allowed to do so here), and to try to sway anyone who comes looking for Bible truth away from Bible truth. Bible truth which he believes is entirely relative to who is reading it, as I pointed out in my first statements on this post. Finally, anyone who disagrees with him he proclaims to be dishonest, mean spirited, and not acting according to the directions of the Lord, or in a manner aligning with a "Good Christian character". To that I say only: Tit 3:9-11 (9) But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. (10) A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; (11) Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. and: Rom 16:17-18 (17) Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (18) For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. It is indeed Biblical to mark out men such as this man, who has posted foolish questions designed to sway people from the simplicity in Christ, and who has by his actions before he was stopped, shown that his purpose was to swell his own belly by the merchandising of his own thoughts as he promoted his own writings, the whole while twisting and ignoring the Word of God, claiming that it is not the Word of God as it is written. My advice to anyone reading OLB at this time, is that where you see this man's name on a post, you need to be aware that this man does not value the Word of God as the Word of God, he has no desire to reveal the truth of the Word of God, but only his own perceptions and interpretations of the Word of God, and the god that he follows is simply not the God of the Bible. And finally, none of this is an unfounded personal attack, as the facts that I state are clearly seen in his own posts and answers to other people's posts. I am not angry, other than to be offended at the blatant misuse, mirepresentation, and wresting of the Word of God, and disguised evil intent to draw people away from biblical truth. I am not attacking the man, but what the man has said and presented on this forum. It does however indicate the character of such a man and as such he will no doubt cry "ad hominin" to it.

Lets quote the verse itself and see what it says about Junia...... Rom 16:7 (7) Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. I don't know, but it seems to me that it says KINSMEN......... You can talk about naming conventions, but your decision to make it female is an ASSUMPTION that is not borne out by the verse itself. This is a ridiculous argument. You conveniently neglect to quote other verses: Act 18:2 (2) And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them. Act 18:26 (26) And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. 1Co 16:19 (19) The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. By placing Aquila's name ahead of his wife's in these passages, Paul (OK Luke in two of these) appears to esteem him ahead of Priscilla as a co-worker. Finally, I don't know, how about: 1Ti 3:2 (2) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; And don't even try to say that this should be "Partner of one Partner". The Word Husband in this passage is inherently masculine, whilst the word wife is inherently feminine. Even in the Greek if you choose to go there. And to argue that it was acceptable culturally to do this, is to say that God doesn't know enough to write His Word they way He needs to, and that He is bound by cultural ideologies. Not the God that my Bible describes, although apparently your god is restricted by culture. I am just a dumb bloke who chooses to understand what the Bible says in the way that it says it. I hope I never become intelligent enough to figure out that the Bible doesn't mean what it says. Like you.

This is a wrong statement, but it shows again the attitude of this man. "Do We Also Have Bible-Based Doctrines That Are Wrong? Is There a Case for Women as Pastors?" To even ask this question shows that this man has no regard for biblical truth. If a doctrine is Bible-Based, then it is not wrong. If it is wrong, then it is not Bible-Based. The things that he references in his original post that he says were wrong, were...... not biblically based, but corrupted. Or he has taken them out of context. A simple reading of the relevant Scriptures makes it plain that there is no biblical case for women pastors.