Jump to content


Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by DaveW

  1. 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?
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Apologies - it is confusing the way it is laid out.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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....
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.....
  15. Actually, it is very easy to dismiss his use of these scriptures: 1. This presupposes that this medical procedure is sinful, it does not designate it so. 2. This is talking specifically of spiritual nakedness, not physical. 3. This specifically speaking in terms of sexuality. Not one of these specifically applies to the medical issues you are talking about, in which no sexuality is the subject. Don't get me wrong, I actually lean towards your position. But Steven Anderson once again takes verses out of context, and misapplies them, and draws conclusions based not on the Bible, nor on facts, but from his own twisted mind. Even in this he is walking in dangerous territory. I personally would prefer a woman doctor for my wife and girls, and a male doctor for myself and my boys, but would prefer above all else the best doctor available. But I think it is a hard matter to "prove" biblically.
  16. Yes, but as you point out, it was called transjordan, not actually Palestine. Palestine was regional name, not a national name. The region was under control of various Arab nations of the area, but none of them were all that interested because the land was barren and wasted -until the Jewish people started returning and bringing the place back to life. Now they all want it. And the people there were called Palestinians, but not the people who currently call themselves Palestinians. If you check the names in the Palestine Orchestra of the early 1900's for inastance, the names are almost exclusively Jewish. (I can't remember the full name right now). There were Jews and Arabs and even "Christians" in the area all in small numbers compared to today. The people currently claiming the name were not there....... The funniest thing about the whole matter is that of the modern people in the land, the ones with the strongest continuous connection are in fact the Bedouin, but they don't want to claim it. They don't want to claim any national association. They want to be left alone to live as they please. And of course the Bible says that God gave it to the Israelites as an everlasting covenant.
  17. Ok, I don't know of this guy will ever come back - I somehow doubt it as he joined up to make some claims and accusations, and is just unlikely to come back now that he has made those statements. I however would like to address some of them for future readers. His claim of "No true Scotsman" etc is a matter of opinion not evidence. He knew someone would question his salvation and wanted to head it off at the pass, but despite his protestations, it is a legitimate question to pose. If this man gave up on his salvation, then was he ever saved in the first place? He even said at one point: In which he basically admits that he was faking it, and thereby PROVES his "No true Scotsman" issue. Secondly he calls for people to: But he himself has not really defined what he means by "the impossible" and he also presents no proof that miracles are not true. He present an argument from silence - evidence doesn't exist to prove it so it must not be true. This is not accurate in two ways: 1. Evidence does indeed exist, he just doesn't like it. 2. Lack of evidence is no evidence against something. For Instance, I don't see polar bears in my area. I don't find any tracks, any scat, and I have never seen one. I know there are pictures, but I suspect they have been doctored and therefore I refuse to accept them as valid. I have no valid evidence for the existence of polar bears, Therefore polar bears cannot exist. (Note: I do believe Polar bears are real - it is for the sake of example.) You can see that the lack of evidence for something is not evidence against something. He speaks about evidence but provides none. If he ever comes back I really do hope he starts a thread about the errors in the Bible, but I hope he first of all notes which Bible and which form of Christianity he was a part of, and which doctrines he is speaking of. What people teach about the Bible is full of errors - even the best meaning preacher makes mistakes, let alone those who do so with intent. So to make such a claim without evidence goes against the very process which he says pulled away from "Christianity ". Interesting that he speaks of evidence here while providing absolutely none in his accusations. I have to ask what evidence there is for what he now "believes"? Do you believe in the evolutionary process by any chance? Because if you have studied any field of evolutionary science, you must know that there is not enough evidence to back them up. I am happy to discuss any field of evolutionary science with you and show the basic assumptions involved in them for which there is no evidence - that is why they are assumptions- the real question is whether those assumptions are REASONABLE, not whether there is solid evidence. There just isn't the evidence, that's why they make assumptions. So, what evidence is there for what he believes? Well since we don't know what he believes other than being an atheist, we can't really answer that. By the way an atheist is one who believes there is no God, but to know that for certain you would have to have all knowledge of all things, otherwise you have to admit that somewhere in the small amount of things you don't know, God might just be there...... Now by definition who is the only one that has all knowledge of all things? That's right only one, and that one would be.........God. So for an atheist to truly be an atheist, he would have to be God.......You sir, are not really an atheist, you are an agnostic who wants there to be no God.
  18. Oh you mean like what you tried to do in you first post???? Maybe your "brand" of "Christianity" was false (many are) but the Bible is not. Then again maybe your Bible was false - many are. How about you start a thread about the errors in the Bible that convinced you...... Then again, if you don't believe anything about the Bible why are you even here? Is you purpose to destroy the faith of some here? If you don't believe in anything then what difference does make if others do? - why not leave them to be happy?
  19. Faith healing, tongues etc, are a different thing altogether. I agree that if faith healing was true today these people would go hospitals not stadiums - sicknpeople are typically found in hospitals, not stadiums where you normally have to buy a ticket. But I do think God can still work miracles. The problem with the testing that you mention is that you are trying to test spiritual things by physical methods. Sort of like trying to test the speed of a plane by measuring trees - you aren't going to get anything useful because you are testing the wrong thing, meanwhile the plane still goes by at a rate of knots. The thing still happens, you just can't see any spiritual evidence because you are trying to measure by physical means - the result is there, the reason behind it is not measurable.
  20. Not at all. The overwhelming majority of these people were moved into the are during the various land grabs since the establishment of the modern nation of Israel. Prior to the return of Jews to that area around the beginning of the 1900's (yes there were a small number of people including Jews in the region prior to that time) there was hardly anyone in the land and pretty much nobody wanted it as it was mostly barren. It was the returning Israelites that greened the land, and since they made it green the Arabs in the surrounding areas decided it was worth having. So by fact of position they are today Israelie because that is where they live, but today the area is not officially called Palestine. And their heritage is largely Jordanian, Lebanese, etc. They are Israelie. They pay taxes to the Israelie government. They get financial support from the Israelie government. Their fire service is provided by the Israelie government. Their hospitals are provided for by the Israelie government. Their schools are supported by the Israelie government. They vote in Israelie elections. They are not Palestinian at all. They are Israelie of various Arab backgrounds. And most have been in the land for no more than two generations. The oldest among them would remember coming into the land since 1948. The problems stem from one simple fact: the Muslim Arabs as a group want Israel to cease to exist.
  21. More importantly, the Bible is our authority. No vision of any kind can or will supercede or override Scripture. Keep that in mind, and discuss whatever you like about visions.....
  22. No, not at all, I simply point out that you have changed your "point" every time your error has been pointed out and not admitted that you were wrong - you are just moving a bit to try to get out of it. No one is denying the name itself - the discussion was based around the purpose for the renaming, where Roby said it was because Hadrian wanted to give it to the Palestinians, who at the time of Hadrian were no longer in existence, so his statement was totally impossible. Your normal link of the name "Palestine" to the people who now claim that name is irrelevant to the discussion and in any case they are not and never were Palestiniains. The majority are in fact of Jordanian heritage, and not Palestinian at all.
  23. Trying to confuse the issue with all sorts of extraneous information and changing the subject, but your statement about Hadrian was absolutely wrong, no matter what twist you put on it.
  24. So your "proof" that your original statement is correct is that Zechariah mentions Philistines 600 years before Hadrian was around?????? Historians largely agree that there is now no sign of the lineage of the Philistines. There are some theories, but there is no evidence, and Hadrian had nothing to do with the Philistines. So you "ACTUALLY" is simply total and utter rubbish. You were wrong about Hadrian with regard to the Philistines.
  25. This is just wrong for the plain reason that in the time of Hadrian (2nd century) there were NO philistines. The nation had been long gone by this time. The Palestinians CLAIM heritage but there is no evidence as to which people today came from the philistines. Hadrian named the place Palestina in order to break the Israeli link with the land, not to give it to anyone else.

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...