Jump to content


Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by DaveW

  1. Woah there big boy......The only place I remember John saying anything to do with "low calibre" is:

    On 9/25/2019 at 12:52 PM, John Young said:

    I personally believe one of the big reasons the modern church is struggling today, and lacks power is because Bishops and churches (even in the IFB types) refuse to disqualify pastors but instead make excuses for their sin and why they are minumily qualified and keep ordaining men of lower and lower caliber in stead of seeking men who are at the strictest example of the qualifications. 

    And yet you accuse him of saying:


    18 minutes ago, SAB76 said:


    It was your own words that claimed there were men of lower degree defiling the church, and that that lower degree was due to some personal part of their life (divorce). It wasn't because they were preaching falsehoods on the foundational doctrines, or because they were teaching another way of salvation contrary to Paul's gospel, or teaching others to believe in perverted versions of the bible. It was because they didn't live up to the misinterpreted meaning of "of one wife". It was OK that God called a murder to free his people, or an adulterer and a murder to be king over his people, and a brawler and striker to preach the gospel of the circumcision, and a murderer and abetter to murder to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised, but that "sin" of divorce is just too much for God to forgive & forget to call that man to preach and teach his word.

    You used the terminology of higher & lower degree...And while you may claim they are forgiven...you believe and teach that their "sin" is not forgotten. And I will keep stating what I have since the start. This is Pharisaical.

    You need to be careful with your accusations, for that is not what John said, nor even what he implied. In fact, almost exactly the opposite. He didn't say they were defiling the church, and he didn't restrict the reason to only divorce - in fact he didn't even designate divorce specifically.

    And yet you go on a rant about all the other problems with churches today saying that John was ignoring those and suggesting it was ALL ABOUT DIVORCE.

    In fact, John's statement includes, not excludes all of these things, because it is a general statement.

    This is very close to a false accusation.


  2. 1 Timothy 3

     1  This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

     2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; note

     3  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; note

     4  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

     5  (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

     6  Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. note

     7  Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.


    I have been rather surprised that people are talking about sin in relation to this passage.

    Where does it talk about sin?

    It doesn't.  It speaks of qualifications, not sin.

    Maybe people should consider that rather than talking about this in terms of sin.



    What is the difference between them?

    Interesting study for those who can be bothered and are interested in the biblical truth rather than winning an argument.

  3. A search indicates that it is Cary Schmidt, Emmanuel Baptist church somewhere...…..

    I think this is a problem with the RSS mechanism - at one stage long ago it used to give the extra info from the feed, but at one of the upgrades it stopped.

    It might be a setting somewhere???????


    In any case it is annoying …...

  4. But you don't do that - you defend the man.

    You like the guy..... 

    You like at least some of his teaching....

    You defend the man......

    On any level the guy is clearly not qualified to be a pastor, clearly teaches false doctrine, clearly is a bad testimony for the Lord, clearly goes beyond Scripture, clearly does not follow the duties of a Pastor...... etc.

    You need to stop defending a man who is clearly a heretic.

    But you can't help yourself - you are a fan..... and no matter how much you deny it, your posts tell a different story.

    Follow no man - follow only the Lord and His Word.

  5. Why even bother?

    This guy is clearly a false teacher, and no Bible lover should have anything to do with him.

    I don't know why you insist on defending a man who is so clearly a bad testimony for the Lord, and who is so clearly a false teacher, and so clearly a hateful man.

    Anything that he gets right you can find with teachers who don't have his false teaching.

    In my opinion, anyone who is so prominent as a teacher online and promotes themselves as such is unbiblical - IF he is a pastor (regardless of what he calls himself), he should concern himself with the flock to which the Lord has given him.

    NO MAN is Pastor to the world. God gives pastors to individual churches, not to the "whole world".......

  6. 1. I never said definitions were unimportant. I implied that definitions need to be correct.

    2. The Greek supports the definition of the word. Just like any dictionary gives definitions.

    3. Your proposed definition of wife, given with no reference as to its origin, does not align with the official definitions.

    To be honest, I am not interested in becoming further involved in this discussion, but as you say, definitions are important, but it is also important that they are correct definitions.

  7. It seems to me that much is being made of certain definitions, but those definitions for not appear to be true.

    For instance, the greek word from which is translated the word "wife" has a primary meaning of "woman", and a secondary of "specifically a wife", which makes the word a descriptive rather than a "title".

    Secondly, a bishop is absolutely required to rule his house well, the reference to children being an addendum to that, but a wife is absolutely a part of that household.

    Finally, the rules on divorce must be considered, as Biblically not all divorce is the same.

    One thing is certain about divorce though:

    Matt 19:8

    8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.


    Hey friend, why don't you pop across to the intro section and introduce yourself properly.

  8. I actually think it is a bit of a pity this ended up like this.

    I genuinely want such people to properly answer the points put to them. It helps me to understand the arguments.

    Of course this guy was not properly responding in any case, but it is still a pity he decided to force the mods to act.

    Thanks to the mods for acting appropriately and quickly by the way.

  9. 2 hours ago, Shoostie said:

    You xxxxxxxxxx, he has said it far more than twice.  Maybe just twice in this thread.

    I repeated it because you refused to do so. I stopped as soon as I was asked.

    I would have stopped the moment you gave this board the proper respect of an intro.

    Your foul descriptions however should not pass the keyboard of a Christian.

  10. 1 hour ago, Shoostie said:

    DaveW, you senile old fool, no one at any ride sharing company has been prosecuted for claiming their drivers are contractors.  And, they're not going to be.  

    This is a disgusting personal attack.

    I am neither old, nor senile, and you know nothing about me - that is obvious.

    And you are wrong. If you paid any real attention you would know you are wrong.

    And the language you use to refer to the forum is also a disrespectful disgrace.

  11. I thought this would be an interesting subject, but I guess not.

    I know I have had discussions with people about pastoral duties and it is surprising what people think are biblical duties for a pastor which are not. They are traditional.

    Some are good things to be done, but some are unnecessary burdens upon Pastors.

  12. 25 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

    I've heard of employers calling their employees "Independent contractors" in order to avoid having to pay stuff like matching FICA and workman's comp insurance.  Never researched it myself because I don't have employees. This should shed some light on what's legal and what ain't. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/independent-contractor-defined

    I don't know about over there, but here the ride sharing companies (those that use people with private cars as taxis) and several other companies have been prosecuted for trying to claim that their drivers are contractor to whom they don't have to pay benefits and for whom they don't have to pay taxes.

    They were wrong too, and they are not religious, therefore not being religiously persecuted.

  13. 6 hours ago, Shoostie said:

    It doesn't say you can follow them back.  It says some Jewish families have traditions (like Senator Warren's native American ancestry), which  is far short of your claim.  The article can't even provide one example of any genealogy that can be followed back to Israel. The best genealogy it has, it says was broken in the 1500s, and there's no verification of its credibility, even if it wasn't broken.   The facts don't support your doctrines. 

    God made an everlasting covenant, but a covenant is a two-way agreement, which the Jews broke when they rejected Christ, and earlier when they worshiped pagan gods.  If the Jews could not break the covenant, why did God say Israel is not his people and he is not their God?   You won't see my squirm, but I'll see you squirm.





    Once again you fail to read the Bible. In the first place, not all covenants are two way agreements. See Genesis 15.

    Secondly the passage I quoted gives the entirety of this particular covenant and the condition for the Israelites is given in verse 14, and it applies to INDIVIDUALS, not the nation.

    Read it. Read it carefully.

    You are wrong.



  14. And I noted from the article that "at least one" could follow it back - thank you for confirming that and adding that the number according to that article is actually two.

     Not bad for a nation that you claim doesn't exist at all - you have confirmed that at least 2/12's of that nation still exist, which is enough to prove you are wrong.

    If they still exist, the the others also do, and the God I believe in is certainly able to keep track of who is who, and call out 12000 from each tribe, even if He has to identify each and every individual.

    The god that you follow is a liar, and is not powerful enough to know who is who.....

    I will continue to follow the God of the Bible rather than your weak, counterfeit, lying god.



    And you still refuse to do this board the basic courtesy of a proper introduction in the intro section.

  15. And yet it DOES SAY that they can follow back to them - This disproved your assertion. And it was only the first that was listed on my search.

    You are the one making the false claim, so you need to prove it, not me.

    I have shown verse after verse after verse after verse that proves you are wrong.

    THAT is reliable testimony.

    I have seen the lists on the walls and seen the monuments standing, and spoken with people who follow their lineage to Benjamin specifically, and I don't remember the others.

    But even that is nothing compared to the verse after verse that shows you are wrong.

    In response to the verses I listed you simply said they "all agree with me" and refused to respond to EVEN ONE OF THEM. You sidestepped one single verse and answered something irrelevant instead.

    Your ENTIRE argument process appears to consist of "I'm right and you're wrong" and you present no evidence but accuse everyone else of having no proof.

    You are a troublemaker, and are only here to cause division - but as you will have noticed, as indicated by the number of likes my posts have, you are not causing division among us.

    You sir are a wolf, with the single intent of deceiving, and overthrowing the faith of some.

    You will fail on this forum.

    And this is precisely why you refuse to give this board the basic courtesy of properly introducing yourself - this is what every false teacher has done when they come to this board, and this one action designates you as a false teacher.


    How about then you answer the point about Genesis 17?

    I know you can't but I want to see you squirm as you try.

    And of course you still refuse to introduce yourself, which is just plain basic good manners and well known forum etiquette- but you care nothing for any of that because good manners is not a part of causing dissention, which is you intent.

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

  • Create New...