Jump to content


Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by DaveW

  1. I think at times it is funny, sometimes it is a warning, but it always indicates an unbalanced focus, whether to greater or lesser extent. When every conversation ends up being about the same thing, no matter where it starts, when every message ends up touching on the same subject, no matter what passage is used, it can be a warning of a doctrinal issue to wary of. I saw this with someone who came to our church a few years back. He was known to us from years before, but when he came and joined this church, his understanding on a certain issue had changed. At first the comments were occasionally out of place - made you wonder why he said it? But as time went on these comments became more often and then started to be more obvious. It was time to tell him to back off - which he mostly did. The comments still came but were far more subtle - most would not notice them. I know another bloke who in every message I have ever heard him preach he says somewhere ".... Dare I say it? The bride of Christ" it doesn't seem to affect his.message, but somewhere in there he says it - it has become a thing I look for now. I would class this one as "funny" because it is a simple mention, not an intrusion into the point of the message. Anyway, when every conversation turns to a particular subject, it seems to me that it is a warning for the listener.
  2. The problem with applying Lev to this passage is that it makes the two months bewailing her virginity irrelevant. If the vow was fulfilled without the completion of the stated vow, then both that statement, and also the reaction of grief from Jephthah are strange to say the least. The plain reading of the passage is plain. By the way, Jewish scholars - who you would think would understand these things better than most, until around 1097, had a universal understanding that the actual act of offering his daughter as a burnt offering was what happened. In 1097 (may have been 1079) a Catholic priest introduced the idea of seclusion as a fulfilling of the vow. This was the first time that I could find in my study that anyone is recorded as understanding this passage in any way other than the plain reading. Again, not saying that it was according to God's will, certainly not by God's command, but reading plainly the whole passage the plain understanding says what it says.
  3. God called David a man after God's own heart, and certainly did not demand nor condone some of his actions, but recorded those actions faithfully. God did not tell him to, and I don't see anywhere where it says God was pleased with the action, but it is plain in it's record of both the precise nature of the vow, and also that it was done as it had been vowed. If you can show Scripture to prove otherwise, then by all means give it, but please do not explain away the plain sense of Scripture because it offends your feelings. I dearly love my daughters ( and sons) and can not imagine performing such a thing, but I know what I read in Scripture. I take no pleasure in the account, but must tell it as it is written, no matter how hard it is.
  4. I agree with you about it being dumb - absolutely no question of that. I don't like the idea of it any more than anyone else here, but when I preached through Judges last year I studied this in depth looking for some way to excuse him from his vow, but could find none. It was so hard to preach it - could barely get the words out, as the faces of my own daughters looked back at me, but Jephthah and his daughter both agreed that it was more important to keep a promise made to God, than to break that promise even for the love of a daughter. While the action is abhorrent, yet the principle of loving the Lord before all else - even his daughter - rises prime in this account. I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back. Not even for my daughter...........
  5. Samuel, the problem I have with your thoughts on Jephthah is the last part of 11:31, where he is clear in his vow - "as a burnt offering", and then vs 39 where it says "who did with her according to his vow". It is pretty clear what his vow was, and equally clear that he performed his vow. The custom is explained in vs 40, that the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament, not that this sacrifice was done each year, but that there was an annual trip where some young ladies went away for 4 days to remember her. Every argument I have ever heard against this actually being performed according to his actual vow has been based upon not wanting to think about someone doing this, and that it wouldn't be acceptable to God anyway. I agree that it is extremely horrible to think of, and can't see how such an act can be glorifying to God, and yet it is what the Bible says. Further, the point made that she bewailed her virginity means that she never got married and had kids and fulfilled the vow that way is very weak. First, it was not the original vow, not in any way; second, have you never heard the parent of a child who has died lament the thought that "I will never walk her down the aisle" or "I will never hold my Grandbabies"? It is far easier to understand "bewailing her virginity" in this way than it is to understanding a precise vow being fulfilled in way expressly different to the statement of the vow. Although it is unthinkable to us (especially as the father of two daughters myself), yet my feelings against something does not give me the right to ignore the clear wording of Scripture. How can it possibly be acceptable to God? I don't know, but it what the Bible says.
  6. John, that one thought puts a very different light on the.vast majority of the political discussions here. ;)
  7. And of course the majority of parents who lead their families for the Lord will not only do so at home, but try to back that up with their choice of education, while most who do nothing at home make peacemeal efforts to ensure the education is also godly. It is instructional at times to see how those who reject God's way of salvation but follow other of God's principles still find success in those areas - as has been mentioned with mormons. I was helped out at one stage when my car died by a Mormon family, and I can tell you, they could certainly teach more than a few about raising a family.
  8. Well I know that in Australia the majority are "elder rule", many have no "pastor" as such but the teaching is done by a council of elders. Some I have known teach baptismal regeneration. There are some who rule with an iron fist, taking virtually complete control of those involved. Some appear to include this submission as part of salvation somehow - not sure how it works exactly, but I knew a guy who was told that when he left they removed his salvation. Most I have met appear to be universal church. But there is variation, and I have met some who seem straight down the line. These are my observations only, and not meant to imply that all brethren are like this.
  9. Jerry, I agree that it is absolutely the best course to have your children in a GOOD Christian school, better if that school is under your own roof. My point was really that some parents think that by putting their kids in a Christian school they no longer have to lead and.teach them the things of Christ, because the school will do it. I know one family who have always had their kids in Christian schools, but their kids are shocking and they will lose at least two of them by the looks of it. Their problem is that Dad is not leading, mum is not submitting, and as far as I can tell very little Bible reading goes on in that house. They refused to be taught, but are relying on the school to give them "good kids". I also know a family who have their boys in secular school, but their family Christian walk is strong, and their kids are serving, good testimony, honouring young men. The best is good family and God honouring schooling. But many people put more store in "Christian education" than God honouring family life. We have always carefully considered the schools our kids went to, even driving nearly 60miles a day for several years to get our kids to a genuinely good Christian school. Currently we homeschool, and our oldest is in university now. But all still come to church every service and serve in music, letterbox drops, ushering, helping in Sunday School etc. Does that make sense?
  10. Here the dirt oval racing is called speedway, and used to go all the time. The outlaws are the best, always was. We actually have the main track in our city not far away, but I haven't been in the 8 years we have.lived here.......
  11. I don't disagree with that, and our kids have always gone to a GOOD Christian school or been homeschooled (as now). However, in my experience a godly family can overcome the disadvantage of secular school, just putting your kids into a Christian school will not overcome a poor Christian family life. It is absolutely best to have a godly education, but I have known some who think a Christian school relieves them of parental responsibility, just I have know some who have chosen secular school but make sure that the family life is strongly focussed on Christ. For clarity - Christian school, godly family is by far the best.
  12. F1 is free to air here, most live, but always replay that evening as well. US grand prix is next one. ;)
  13. We have some people who are out the door like a bullet as soon as I am finished if their Aussie rules football team is playing Sunday afternoon, but none that I am aware of who put it before church - just a very close second...... Me? Formula one car racing. I try to catch every race, but some clash with church. I either watch the replay Sunday night (normally 10.30pm to about 12.30) or I just miss it. I can't record it and watch it later - when I have tried I end up not watching it anyway. :D
  14. Last Night's dinner - Thai green curry chicken - home made. I am blessed to have a great cook as my wife. ;)
  15. You mean only on an obvious reading? Only when reading what us actually written in the pages? Only when looking to other passages which explain the parts that are obviously symbols, which give clarity to the parts which are obviously literal? Yep, two literal men, literally preaching the Gospel, who are literally wearing sackcloth, and who are literally killed, and who literally lie dead in the street, and literally come to life again. That's the way I read it. Strangely, that's also what is actually says.
  16. But the obvious reading, which fits with cross link in Zechariah as well, is that these two are two individual men. And the seven churches also are read most obviously as seven individual churches in actual cities. You explanation is convoluted, and not based upon the plain reading of the verses but a predetermined position of a doctrine. If you read these two passages plainly it makes good sense to see them literally.
  17. And most likely gave one to the boss and shredded the rest. They were trying to get the information out of circulation. Next time give them only a handful and tell them to contact you for more if they want more. I would be very surprised if they don't try to convince you otherwise. Their purpose was to stop you, not to learn from you.
  18. My comment is that I like both of those posts. When the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense.
  19. A couple of people have mentioned that polygamy was common at the time. My history is not fantastic, but to my knowledge, the Jews of that time were primarily monogomous, the Greeks largely so, even the common Roman was, although concubines were not uncommon among the elite of their society. To the best of my knowledge, polygamy was not really an issue among those of that area at that time. If polygamy was not common in that area at that time, then why would Paul reference it in this way? I would appreciate it if someone could provide some reference to widespread polygamy in that region and time.
  20. It is part of their training to sit in on other churches occasionally.
  21. I will not disagree with much of that post but, you should always refrain from sarcasm. It simply does not honour the Lord.
  22. 2Time_15, regardless of position on this issue, your tone comes across as harsh and unloving. The opening of "reeeeeeeeaally" which yourself note as "dripping with sarcasm" serves only to offend. You are certainly not the only one here who choose better ways to say things (myself included) but you can hardly phrase and tone things the way you have here, then cry about people taking you the wrong way. Take some time to dwell upon it and consider, not the argument, but the manner in which it has been put by you. A soft answer Turneth away wrath.
  23. Revelation 11:3 by the way, not 3:3. By the way, a quick search tells me that Zec 4 explains exactly who they are - not by name, but by job - they are channels through which the oil that feeds the light to the world comes. The imagery, which is obvious in Revelation as imagery in this case, is clearly that these two preach the light of the Gospel during that time.
  24. I read that there will be two literal witnesses who will prophesy - (not necessarily telling of the future, but in telling forth the words of God - for 1260 literal days. The context tells us quite clearly that they are like olive trees and they are like candlesticks. When imagery is used in the Bible it is quite plain. Thanks for pointing out fact that imagery is obvious when it is used. Which is what I have been saying, and Rev 1:1's use of the word signify is not an obvious indicator of symbology, as the passage you reference here is. Go looking for the olive trees elsewhere to figure out how these men are like olive trees or candlesticks. It really is not hard when the Bible makes it so plain.
  25. The of my post is that there are two possible meanings of that word. In such cases the context indicates which meaning should be understood. In the Hebrews passage you mention the context indicates that this is a figure where it use that separate word to confirm which meaning is implied. The revelation passage does not carry that same context. In fact the events included, while sometimes a little strange can be easily understood to be literal events - when read plainly it actually makes more sense to understand them literally. And how is it that my acknowledging of BOTH possible meanings is wrong, but your denial of the meaning that you don't like is fine? I was always taught that if the obvious sense makes good sense, then seek no other sense. Well the obvious reading of Revelation is that these are real events that will (or have) really happened, not that they are some kind of veiled descriptions that are explained by vaguely similar, but less intense events. I am a simple man, but the Bible was written for simple men to understand. It is not that hard.

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...