Jump to content

DaveW

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

    5,582
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    212

Everything posted by DaveW

  1. Aaaahhhh- actually they are in this case. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to suggest the rich man nor Lazarus was either asleep or dreaming in the passage. This a concept that you have entirely imposed onto the passage, for it is not found in the passage.
  2. The KJV has absolutely no indication that the account of the rich man and Lazarus was a dream in any way. It is stated as a factual, real event experienced personally by these two men.
  3. Welcome. Several different groups are solidly KJV - what is your affiliation? Who are you associated with? What kind of church are you a member of?
  4. I agree with the David Cloud recommendation. He has Pdf material available. However, most of Brother Sargent's material is also available as pdf. If you contact him direct and explain your situation I am sure he can help you out. Both of these men have good conservative Bible material.
  5. Of course parents can be wrong. No one is perfect, and we all make mistakes. But there is no doubt that God expects us to honour and obey our parents. Eph 6:1-3 (1) Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. (2) Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) (3) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. Where it says to obey, that word actually means more than just doing what you are told - it also carries with it the idea that we should obey with the right attitude. It is easy to do as we are told but not having the right attitude with it. And where it says "honour", that means to value them or more to the point "to ascribe value" to them. This means that you make them valuable to you. This doesn't mean that you honour them when they deserve it, but that you honour them and value them because they are your parents. That is probably not what you want to hear, but the Bible is plain that we are to honour and obey our parents not because they are right, but simply because they are our parents. We are to value them not because they are good, or even good parents, but because they are our parents. The ONLY out for that is where they would tell you to do something that is against the Bible and God's Commands. You should never go against God's Word, but you must find a way to honour them whilst refusing to dishonour God. Finally, can you say you have always been a perfect child? I am going to answer for you - no, you haven't been. I can safely assume this because no one has ever been a perfect child. How then can you expect them to be perfect parents? They are made of the same stuff that you are. I do have one final, final thing to say - if any of this involves personal danger to you, then get yourself out of danger. Once you are safe you can figure out what the best course of action is from there, and how honouring your parents fits with that.
  6. I didn't see this specific article but I am aware of the site. Cool quote there too Alan.
  7. Can I encourage you to try ever preacher or teacher against the Word of God. Whether it is live preaching, on line preaching, books, or college course, don't simply accept anybody's teaching, but test it and study it from God's Word. Look at Acts 17 10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Note that these were more noble because they searched the scriptures testing whether the preaching of Paul was correct. Paul was an apostle, used of God to write about half the New Testsment. If it was ok to check that Paul was preaching it right then you can be sure it is ok for you check anybody else.
  8. Shouldn't really make up your own meanings to words..... That is what most of the cults do - they make up their own definitions for words and then say they agree with you. (Applying their own definition)
  9. This is an interesting addition to your study. Gal 3:22-25 (22) But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (23) But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. (24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (25) But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. The Law had a job (purpose) of teaching us that we need Christ. Even today, the fact that no one is able to keep all the Law teaches those willing to listen that there is only one way - through Christ Jesus the Lord.
  10. No, not me. My Dad was in Vietnam - came back better than most. He stayed in the Army for 21 years. So, military family. I joined the airforce cadets when I was a youngster, and thought about following on, but that didn't happen.
  11. Day of remembrance for Australian and New Zealand soldiers. "Lest we forget....." The Ode They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old; Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them. Lest we forget......
  12. For your "pet" doctrine? This is something that I have observed over many years: that people find a pet doctrine, or are convinced of a certain doctrine, and they then proceed to throw away some very basic doctrines in pursuit of their new favourite. An example of what I mean. I knew a man who was rabid about the KJV and about adult believer's baptism - both good basic positions to hold. However, over the years he became convinced of the "merits" of Calvinism. Now in our city there were few Independent Baptist Churches that were even Calvinistic leaning, let alone full on Calvinist. This meant that to find a church that would teach and hold to his new fav doctrine, he was forced to search outside IB circles, and the most obvious choice was the Presbyterians, who by and large are Calvinistic. The problem is that the majority are also infant baptism, modern versions, universal church, and other wonky things. But he was willing to throw out these basic IB doctrines and a few others as well, because hey hold to Calvin's doctrines of grace. The thing that amazes me is that even if Calvin's muck was right, why would throw out everything else for that one thing? And I have seen similar things over the years, where men are happy to link up with prominent men who teach doctrines clearly outside Baptist norms for sake of a particular doctrine they personally are having fun with. The latest is a guy I know who is rabid about KJV for instance and super conservative about music and "worship style", has linked up and is always posting quotes from people like Macarthur, who is modern worship and modern versions. But he promotes his current favourite doctrine, and so he is happy to link up with him...... I just don't understand this - ignore the differences, which are often vast, to accept a single doctrine. Anyone seen this phenomenon?
  13. Bit I find it interesting that you quote Scriptures regarding the practice of the Passover and the Feast of unleavened bread, but conveniently leave out the command for them. The practice was not always right, but the command is unchangeable. And there certainly has been harvest feasts of Pagan origin dating back to well before Christ, and at least one of them was involving the false God Ishatar which SOME say is where we get Easter from. I don't know who it was nor when Easter was associated with Passover, but to totally disregard the pagan association is just not really very genuine. And such feasts are known to be associated with this time of year for in the northern hemisphere that time is the beginning of harvest (generally). Intersting also that such feasts are times according to the moon phases. Passover is a specific date in the Jewish calendar. I just don't particularly like it when people make statements that are incorrect and basically try to bully people into accepting them.
  14. No dude - all present tense in answer to a present tense question. What's so hard that people can't simply accept they were wrong and apologise? I was clearly wrong above and just apologised for my mistake, but you have now given three different stories to try to get out of your mistake..... Oh well, I don't really care all that much. Keep on make new excuses for all I care. Passover is not for Christians - it seems you agree with that..... I think..... I will leave it there.
  15. But you were not referring to the 1st C Jewish believers, but to "Christians" in the current sense. Of course they observed the Passover - they are still Hebrews, to whom the feast was given. it was to be observed forever by the Hebrews, BUT NOT BY US. You are , quite simply wrong in your use of it in reference to Christianity. They did not r Practice it as part of their Christinity, but as part of their heritage. Show me where Christians are commanded to keep a "Passover week of unleavened bread" as you stated clearly previously. No matter which way you cut it, this is an untrue statement, and it will lead to an incorrect understanding of the memorial of the Lord's Supper.
  16. Yes but you clearly denote it as: Christians don't have a "passover week of unleavened bread". It is not accurate. It is not a true statement. It is a confusing statement. It in no way relates anything official in Christianity. Christians and nowhere commanded to keep Passover nor the feast of unleavened bread. They are not Christian memorials, they are Jewish memorials.
  17. The only thing that can be said for certain is that the tomb was empty when the ladies arrived at the tomb before dawn. The actual time of the resurrection is not precisely defined, only the time that the tomb was found open. I might suggest though that Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday for the burial, is not as important as the fact that the tomb is indeed empty.
  18. Apologies - it is confusing the way it is laid out.
  19. John, I am no friend to invicta, but you cannot accuse him of a misquote when he has not done so: John 20 1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. It was yet dark and the stone was taken away - the implications of that I will not comment on, but his quote is correct. And by the way, Christians do not have a "Passover week of unleavened bread". Catholics do something like it when they eat pancakes........ But not Christians.
  20. Tit 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Which I do by the way. I rarely speak to anyone about Steven Anderson, but when the subject comes up I will warn. But he has been spoken to by many, both gently and harshly and he refuses any instruction.
  21. John you don't seem to understand the depths of this matter. He absolutely does teach his "soulwinners" a 123 repeat after me, get em to pray and mark it down as a win. First hand remember. And you say that these attacks go on both ways??????? Not really - people like David Cloud present evidence and talk about bad methods and wrong doctrine, not defaming a person's character like Anderson does. And there are the various false doctrines that he holds and expresses -such as a hatred of Israel - have you read and heard some of the thing s that he says about Israel? And what about the foul language -plenty of times he has used questionable language - terms that some would consider foul but others might not (we all need to be careful of such borderline matters), but he is on record using language that should not pass any Christian's lips let alone be used in preaching. If you think all of these clearly demonstrable matters are small issues, then you need to reassess a few things. If even some of them are true - and I have good confidence in all of them - but even if only some of them are true this man is not qualified to be a pastor.
  22. Have you been directly involved with Steven Anderson? We had a young man who went to the US for the specific reason of joining himself to the ministry "because no one else cares about serving the Lord like they do". (This young man left a great, God serving, soulwinning church by the way. He came back to Australia and came to our church for some months before moving to NSW.) He was with Steven Anderson for 18 months before he left. They ABSOLUTELY 100% do teach them to door to door soulwinning by the 123 method - this is first hand from one who was taught, trained, and participated in their soulwinning program. They can say they don't but this is first hand info brother. They also don't really follow up on them after telling them they should be in church on Sunday. By the way this fits perfectly with their claim to have seen many many thousands saved and yet they have a church which varies between as low as 60 and as high as a couple of hundred. In the 18 months this young man was there they were up and down in numbers like a toy. Partly because Anderson kicks out anyone who challenges him in any way. Again, this is first hand account, not hearsay. And they openly state that homosexuals can't get saved. They may "accidentally witness to mor e homosexuals", but what does that matter, for they are taught that these people are beyond redemption. This is public information. And Anderson and his followers falsely accuse good, hardworking Pastors. I know of a guy in Qjeensland! QUEENSLAND! Half a world away, who was subjected to Anderson attacks. My goodness, this guy is a false teacher, an Israel hater, an attacker of the brethren, and poor testimony of Christ, a user of crass and sometimes foul language, and one who is leading many on a path of at least bad testimony if not false salvation. One day I might even express my real feelings on the matter....
  23. Still rubbish. Those claiming the name "Palestinian" today are of mixed Arab heritage with no real connection to the land and no known heritage to the people called Philistines. The overwhelming majority of them are of Jordanian heritage and Syrian heritage. There is no known link today of anyone to the Philistines of the Bible, and until the Jews returning from the late 1800's through to the establishment of the modern nation of Israel no one wanted the land nor claimed the land except the Jews. The only link in any way is the name of the REGION not through any people now existing. As I already mentioned, the Bedouin are in fact the current people that have the most continuous link and they do not claim philistine heritage and they do not claim the land for themselves. The land was given to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob in the Bible of course. No matter what sort of false facts you want to make up, you cannot link the land to any group now calling themselves "Palestinian", and you cannot make a solid link to of any people today with the Philistines. And I will point out to you that the Philistines are not even of Arab heritage, but were a sea ranging people until the hit the shores of Israel. No one really even knows their full heritage before that, but they are not as far as anyone knows any relation to Abraham and his children.
  24. That's not right at all. In Australia a Rugby player has been threatened to lose his contract ($4million), and being banned from Australian Rugby because he tweeted that drunkards, homosexuals, liars, etc would end up in Hell unless they receive Christ. The homosexual crowd have kicked up a huge fuss and Rugby Australia has basically said they will cancel his contract, unless he retracts. He has refused. Look up Israel Falou (I think it is spelt that way) to find the story, but it has caused a huge fuss over here. Even the mainstream media are saying that it is wrong and that it is an attack on Christianity and freedom of expression. Mr falou for his part is standing firm and saying that if this is the price he pays for standing for the Lord then he will gladly pay it. Not a Baptist, but a conservative Christian man wanting to honour the Lord.
  25. And he totally dismisses the concept that a doctor can dismiss himself (or herself) from sexuality in the course of their duties. And what about nurses, who are historically far more often women, attending medical procedures on men which could be considered "delicate"? And unfortunately today we must also consider those of either sex who are not heterosexual. Under laws in most places today you are not even allowed to ask that question.....

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...