Jump to content


Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by DaveW

  1. Could I suggest you to you, that rather than worrying about fasting and such like, you go right back to basics and read through some passages like: Rom 3:23 (23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Think about what that verse is actually saying, and ask if it applies to you as well. For the ones that the first verse there applies to, they need to look at verses like: Rom 6:23 (23) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. I would like you to note that as the verse is talking about opposites, the "death" spoken of is the same as the "Life" spoken of in one respect - it is eternal. Where does that leave the one who the first verse applies to? Is there a solution to that problem? Joh 3:16-18 (16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (17) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (18) He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. So if God sent His son to offer eternal life to sinners through their belief in Him, what does that look like? How does a sinner "believe" properly? What does it take? Rom 10:9-13 (9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (11) For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. (12) For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. (13) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Consider these passages, and maybe read through the book of John - but consider these passages, what they are saying and does any of that apply to you, and should you pay attention to what it is saying? Can I let you in on a little secret? These passages absolutely apply to me. This is far more important that any discussion you might have on fasting - but if you really want those answers - the simple explanation is to abstain from something so that you may concentrate on worshipping the Lord. It is often food, but doesn't have to be. But the other verses I mentioned are by far the most important thing to study (and there are more to consider as well, but that is a basic starting point).
  2. Eph 4:26 (26) Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: It is possible to be angry without sinning, but I doubt it is possible for me personally...………. At least every time I have been angry, if I am honest I can find sin in my anger. But if anyone could be angry and sin not it would be God. And if you look at the situation of the flood: Gen 6:5-6 (5) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (6) And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. God had every right to be angry because " the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Now we get into deeper theology when we are talking God repenting as mentioned in this passage. If God was the Calvinist God who absolutely determined that men would follow his will in a predeterministic way, then you would have a place to hold your argument. However, if God had determined that men would be able to act according to their own will, then we have room for God to "repent". He was sorry that he made man, because man chose to sin - He therefore chose Noah and his sons, and their wives, who found grace in the eyes of the Lord, to "restart things" (if you will allow that terminology). It was not God's direct will that man become wicked and evil continually - that was man's choice. When man chose that way, God was sorry for it. God did not change, God's overall plan did not change, God's will did not change, but when man chose to sin, it made God sorry. He was always God who wanted man to choose to love Him, and He still is. Just as a father is sorry when his child chooses to do wrong, so also God is sorry for it.
  3. This is an interesting subject....... For my part, it is more about going forward than looking backwards. As far as we can see in the Bible, churches are started by men sent out from other churches. What that means is that if someone wants to start a church they should do it with the proper authority from a sending church, just like in the Bible. But as far as history is concerned..... 1. If someone is relying on their past to prove their current standing they are on dangerous ground. Where does that church stand TODAY? 2. How would anyone prove lineage all the way back? With all the persecution and subsequent secrecy at times it is practically impossible and therefore practically useless. But just because a line of authority is impossible to prove in the past doesn't mean we shouldn't follow the biblical example of starting churches with authority. How your church does things today is far more important than history and heritage. Those things can be undone in a matter of weeks even, with the influence of one strong willed man. But a comparison to the Bible TODAY shows where a church is today.
  4. It is not that I "want to give up", it is simply that there is basically no point to me constantly restating what the Bible says and what I have clearly explained. As to your points, I do not like and do not agree with your added proviso of "at that time." By adding that phrase in each of the points as you have done, you are redefining my statements, because you are attempting to summarise what I have said, but you are adding in a thought which I have not presented, did not suggest, and do not believe. And as you have added that same phrase in each of the points, I can only assume you have done so with careful consideration. As such you are misrepresenting me. I was not going to bbn other clearing that up, but it is a misrepresentation of what I have stated. What I have stated is best summarized by my little simple graphic representation of Acts 2:41. There is no need to redefine and re-present what is the simplest form of what the Bible says in that passage.
  5. I am afraid that to simply thow out everything that David wrote in the way you have is simply ridiculous. And you are now introducing another subject. David OBVIOUSLY believed he had eternal security. The work of the Holy Spirit is another subject.
  6. Fact: the ONLY day that is specifically mentioned as having a church service OF ANY SORT, is the first day. That DOESN'T mean that a church service HAS to be on the first day. In fact there are references to churches meeting daily, so apparently ANY DAY is OK to have a church service. But there is another FACT: Nowhere is it commanded to have a church service on the Sabbath day. If certain people want to ignore what the Bible says about meetings happening on the first day, then that is their right, but you cannot force a Christian to observe the Sabbath day and you cannot restrict the chosen day of worship from being the first day of the week. A church should meet on whatever day suits them the best - regardless of what some people say, there is INDICATION that the first day of the week was a day that some churches met on, so if you want to follow their example, then go right ahead. Traditionally it was convenient to meet on a Sunday because the majority of western nations recognised it as a day for church, and since there is no biblical prohibition against it, Sunday is as good as any other day. Fact: God gave commandment about this matter: Col 2:16-17 (16) Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: (17) Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Meet whatever day you like for church, but do not judge those who do not keep the Sabbath as YOU want them to. Bible folks..... it is kinda important to read it.
  7. What about "OK David talks as though he is pretty certain"? It has nothing to do with what is preached in any church - it has only to do with what the Bible says. David's words are words of certainty - He says "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." I will grant that the Bible doesn't actually say in this passage that he will go to him in Heaven, but the meaning is almost as certain as David's belief that they would be together again. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a result of the question I have started a quick study - I am by no means finished, but am already learning and enjoying it greatly. I thought to myself "If David could speak with certainty in the passage above, then surely he would have spoken something of it in the Psalms. So I started reading through Psalms with an eye to salvation specifically. It is important to understand that often the "salvation" that David speaks of in Psalms is physical salvation from attacking enemies, so we have to be careful to ensure we are talking about actual salvation, and not just the battles of this life. But I couldn't wait to add a couple of these in even before I have come close to finishing this study. And please read the passages fully, not just the portions I have quoted - context, context, context folks - don't just believe me. Psa 17:15 (15) As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness. Notice again the language of certainty - not maybe, but shall.... To me this sounds so much like: 1Jn 3:2 (2) Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And it sounds like David was looking forwards to this: 1Co 15:51-52 (51) Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, (52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. Praise God for this promise, that apparently David knew about also. Psa 20:1-9 (1) To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The LORD hear thee in the day of trouble; the name of the God of Jacob defend thee; (2) Send thee help from the sanctuary, and strengthen thee out of Zion; (3) Remember all thy offerings, and accept thy burnt sacrifice; Selah. (4) Grant thee according to thine own heart, and fulfil all thy counsel. (5) We will rejoice in thy salvation, and in the name of our God we will set up our banners: the LORD fulfil all thy petitions. (6) Now know I that the LORD saveth his anointed; he will hear him from his holy heaven with the saving strength of his right hand. (7) Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. (8) They are brought down and fallen: but we are risen, and stand upright. (9) Save, LORD: let the king hear us when we call. I know it doesn’t talk about eternal security as such, but it is a wonderful explanation of salvation by David. I love the portion from vs 6 and 7 “Some trust in chariots, and some in horses” “but we will remember the name of the Lord” Sounds like salvation by grace through faith and not of works…… Psa 21:1-7 (1) To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The king shall joy in thy strength, O LORD; and in thy salvation how greatly shall he rejoice! (2) Thou hast given him his heart's desire, and hast not withholden the request of his lips. Selah. (3) For thou preventest him with the blessings of goodness: thou settest a crown of pure gold on his head. (4) He asked life of thee, and thou gavest it him, even length of days for ever and ever. (5) His glory is great in thy salvation: honour and majesty hast thou laid upon him. (6) For thou hast made him most blessed for ever: thou hast made him exceeding glad with thy countenance. (7) For the king trusteth in the LORD, and through the mercy of the most High he shall not be moved. Wow. Just WOW!!!! The king shall rejoice in God’s salvation, and when HE ASKED LIFE OF GOD, GOD GAVE IT TO HIM, even length of days…… FOR EVER AND EVER!!!!!!!!!!! Can I just say “Kapow!!!!!” that looks like smoke coming from that gun right there….. And that is just a quick look through the first part of the book of Psalms, and that is without quoting the Psalms that I came across that imply eternal salvation without stating it plainly. I could have probably taken a passage from about half of the first 20 Psalms that I think are hinting at it. Thanks for the challenge - I will enjoy the continued study of this subject - probably won't hear much from me for a while now...….
  8. David seemed pretty sure...... 2Sa 12:22-23 (22) And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? (23) But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. I have never preached specifically about OT eternal security, other than to show from the Bible that salvation has always been the same. If it has always been the same, then …… it has always been the same - eternal security included.
  9. It was Paul preaching when the place had people in it......
  10. Hmmmmmm - I wonder why Paul preached in the Synagogues on the Sabbath? He absolutely did - in fact it was his manner..... Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, So why did Paul choose to preach to the Jews in the Synagogue on the Sabbath and not some other day? How many people would he be preaching to on say a Friday? Or a Tuesday? Paul's manner, his normal way of things, was to go to the Jews first in every town he went to, and to preach in the Synagogue. The people gathered at the Synagogue on the Sabbath day. So Paul preached in the Synagogues when there were people in them. Something I hinted at, but not state plainly in my first post is that a church can meet on any day, but it cannot be commanded to meet on the Sabbath. ANY DAY is a good day to worship the Lord. There are however examples of churches meeting on the first day of the week - specifically mentioning the first day of the week. There are NO OTHER days are specifically mentioned, although the Bible does say things like "daily". If we would choose a single day to hold our regular church services, all the weight falls upon Sunday as the first day.
  11. Well, that is another subject isn't it... I didn't think it was appropriate to address that particular subject in that thread, and I didn't do anything for some time, because I didn't consider it worthy of my time then. I have found the time now, but I did not direct it specifically at you, because I was not actually certain that you position was contrary to what I have posted. I have actually had discussions elsewhere round this subject specifically, and I thought I would introduce the discussion here. I have not however, included any discussion in that thread regarding the Holy Spirit, which I believe is more where your contention on that matter lies - so, no, not specifically directed at your post, but shall we say partially influenced by it. I would not have posted it if it were not for other discussions I have been having recently. It is for discussion, not for animosity. If you wish to discuss that other thread, I respectfully ask you to do so in that thread so that we do not get everything mixed up in two threads. note: I just went back and had a look at that thread - embarrassingly, I obviously didn't read your posts very well - there is a much closer alignment than I realised between your posts and my new thread - I apologise, for it does seem that I am targeting you in it - It was not my intention - I thought your posts were far more wrapped up in the issue of the Holy Spirit. I would not have posted that thread if I had realised the level of alignment. I will remove it if you like, but please accept my apology for the accidental appearance of attack. It was unintentional. I did say I was a dumb bloke - sometime dumber than others I am afraid......
  12. Brother Jordan, I think I tried to address that in my "I am not" section..... I absolutely agree that there are times for precision in language - I am talking about in casual conversations where we, instead of being complete in our wording, we take the "easy way out" knowing that the people we are talking to will understand. Where I might say "I trusted the Lord when I was 16 years old" - you know me well enough to know that I mean the Lord Jesus Christ, that I mean with regard to His death, burial, and resurrection, to know that I mean I confessed my sins and my sinful nature to Him and asked Him to save me, and whatever other details we may have discussed over the years. The kind of thing you are talking about is in regard to the teaching of salvation, which needs to be clear and concise. This is precisely what I am talking about - teaching threads - go for it - investigate every detail and make sure that whoever is leading that thread is totally biblically on track. But if someone causally mentions a point in passing in conversation, then we might let it slide - only because we know that it was not appropriate to go into minute detail in that instance. And I was not referring only to the matter of salvation - that was just the immediate subject that was on my mind.
  13. Ummm…. no, I did not direct this at anyone in any way shape or form. If you think that this applies to you, then maybe you should ask the Lord to help you with that aspect of your current place, but I did not have you in mind when I wrote the original post. As I mentioned in the first line, I was talking to myself as much as others. The basic fact is that it has happened time and time again on OLB, where someone has stated something in a very simple, but technically insufficient way, and ahs been pounced on by one or more members. I can think of at least two member who are not you who have done something like this in very recent times, and if I go back a little further in my mind I can find remember post of my own doing just this - I would venture to say that some on this site took one look at the OP and thought PRECISELY OF ONE OF MY POSTS. I would counsel any other posters, rather than accuse me and thereby your own self, if you think I am posting directly at you, do not expose yourself, but take it to the Lord. I assure you all, that I did not have any one single poster in mind when I posted the original post. If I thought you had overstepped the mark in such a way that I needed to address it, I would PM you about it, or openly post in the particular relevant thread. Many things I am, but cowardly is not one of them. Dumb absolutely is...…. but cowardly - not so much.
  14. I always find it interesting when people try to suggest that salvation was not possible before the cross, or when they at least say that salvation was different before the cross. I find it interesting because Paul doesn't agree with either of those propositions. How can I state it so categorically? Oh I don't know...…. 2Ti 3:15 (15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Which Scriptures do you suppose that Timothy knew from his childhood? Act 17:10-11 (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. Which Scriptures do suppose the Bereans searched as they checked whether the things that Paul preached were so? Well, When Timothy was a child I doubt that they had much in the way of the New Testament written, and the Bereans were checking before at least the vast majority of the NT was written. Little Timmy knew the Holy Scriptures which are able to make him wise UNTO SALVATION. BEFORE most if not all of the NT was written. That means that Paul said to Timothy that the OT Scriptures could tell someone how to be saved the NT way - through faith in Jesus Christ...……….. And what about those Bereans - they searched the Scriptures to check on what Paul was preaching. They searched the OT Scriptures to check on what Paul was preaching. What was Paul preaching? Act 17:2-3 (2) And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (3) Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. Notice that it was his manner to preach this, and what he preached was that Jesus Christ had to suffer and die, and rise again from the dead. The Bereans believed Paul's preaching because hen they checked out the OT to see if Paul was preaching truth, they found it was true - FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT - and they got saved. This means that the OT told people how to be saved through Jesus Christ. Timothy read the Old Testament, believed it, and got saved - apparently when he was a little child. The Bereans read the Old Testament, believed it, and got saved. And in Timothy it says that those Scriptures are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ……. pretty plain to me - the OT tells someone how to be saved through Jesus Christ. And the Bereans were able to confirm in the OT, that salvation is through Jesus Christ, because that is what Paul was preaching. I dunno…… I am just a dumb bloke...…. but it seems pretty obvious to me. The OT tells about Jesus Christ, and what He had to do to save men from their sins - people just had to believe it, just as now they just have to believe it.
  15. I know this is rich coming from me but here goes anyway...… (In other words, I am talking to myself as well!) How about we extend each other a bit of grace every now and then? What I mean is that, especially in the IB section, we all know roughly what we mean - none of the regulars here are going to disagree with the basics of salvation for instance, but sometimes we might say something like "I was saved when I put my trust in Jesus" - and yes that is not technically and theologically correct, but we know we mean when we say such things. There are absolutely times when the technicalities need to be discussed or pointed out, but when the discussion is a casual one, how about we just roll our eyes to ourselves and say "I know what they mean, even though they said it wrong". It just makes me laugh when someone says something like "believing in Jesus doesn't save you"...…. Oh really? Joh 3:16 (16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Who then wants to pick up Jesus for saying that believing in Him means a person will not perish? If you look at what is involved in being saved, the Bible tells us that some were saved by their faith, some were saved by hope, some received testimony of Christ, some by entering in through the door, some by grace, some by His life, some by calling upon His name, and some by confessing and believing, but the next verse by believing then confessing..... The point is sometimes we are very quick to jump on someone for something that is not important - it is incomplete maybe, or casually said instead of properly stated, but we all know what is meant. It just gets a bit silly when someone says something and then feels compelled to put in all these qualifiers in an often vain attempt to cover all their bases so that people don't misunderstand them. And I am NOT saying that language is unimportant, and I am NOT saying that we shouldn't correct false doctrine where necessary, and I am NOT saying that it is OK to be imprecise with our words, and I am Not saying that we should let people get away with heresies, and I am NOT saying ………….. I'm not really sure what else I am not saying, but I AM SAYING why don't we cut each other a bit of slack and when someone says "I trusted Jesus as my Saviour when I was 16..." that we just accept that it is an easy way to say I was saved by trusting in the shed blood of the perfect Lamb, Jesus Christ, and in His perfect sacrificial death on the cross, and in His resurrection from the death, which paid for all my sins and that salvation was placed upon me by His grace when I in faith believe all that He, the only son of God, 100% man and yet 100% God, did to pay the penalty of my sin that I could not pay. And we are not all going to agree 100% on all the little details, keep that in mind too. But rip into those who prove themselves to be false teachers and who are revealed to be wolves in sheeps clothing, come in to deceive - yep - Rip into them with all your might.
  16. I didn't think you did believe that baptism is a part of salvation, but the verses that I have pointed to show that in order to make "church" from that passage the universal group of all believers, a person MUST believe in baptismal regeneration, for the order of events is indisputable. The order of events in vs 41 is: received the word, baptised, added unto them - this order states clearly that they were baptised before they were added (vs 47 identifies what they were added to, the church). There are two possible ways to look at this passage then - either: "the church" mentioned is not the universal group of all believers, and then we can easily say that salvation and baptism are not part of the same process, or "the church" IS the universal group of all believers, in which case baptism is clearly a requirement to finish salvation, for it is ONLY AFTER being baptised that they were added to the church. This is the simple issue in this passage - the order is exceptionally plain - received the word (saved) THEN baptised, THEN added unto them (the church). This is what the Bible says - there is no way around this matter. either it is a local church and salvation is totally separate to baptism and totally separate to being added to the church, or it is a universal church and baptism comes after receiving the word, BUT before being added The order of the events mentioned in Acts 2:41 is clear: Received (saved) -----------------------------> Baptised -------------------------------> Added (vs 47 to the church). If church is universal group of all believers, then baptism MUST happen before you are added to that group. This equals baptismal regeneration, or baptism as part of salvation. If church is local church. then salvation can still add to the group of all believers (unstated in this passage), but then the order remains as above, baptised, then added to the local church.. Salvation is separate to baptism, and baptism is separate to church membership - the timing of these things is not referenced in the passage ONLY THE ORDER. And vs 47 does not say that baptism doesn't come before church membership - that would contradict vs 41. Vs 47 simple omits that information because it is commentary, not instruction. That they were baptised is already referred to in vs 41. I have done nothing more than highlight the order of these events from the Bible passage, and show the logical conclusions involved. There would appear to be no further purpose to me taking part in this discussion as I will only be restating the same information.
  17. Well then, according to the plain order of events laid out in Acts 2:41, you MUST believe that baptism is part of salvation, because the order is: recieved the word, THEN baptized, THEN added unto them (the church). If the church is that universal group of all believers then according to Acts 2:41 baptism completes your salvation. If however the church is local, the order does not add baptism to salvation, but they three separate events, occurring in a specific order: salvation, baptism, added to a local church. Scripture is absolutely clear on this point of the order of events. Universal church nessecitates baptismal regeneration, local church shows them as separate events.
  18. Actually, I finally got a reply, and they apparently have a version that will work for me, but it is more than just the Spurgeon disk I have. I will have to purchase it again, but if I return the disk I have I will possibly get a discount. They will then supply my old disk to someone who can use it, most likely in a "third world country" where older computers and OS are still used. Edit to add: the "they" I mention are the keepers of the software - I think brother Markle is mostly correct in that the "Ages Software" mob are no longer doing their thing as far as I can tell, but these keepers of the software are doing their best to keep "old but useful" software available. And not just the Ages Library.
  19. "Salvation adds to His Church" in respect to this one single portion, can I ask you to consider something? Act 2:41 (41) Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. and: Act 2:47 (47) Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. verse 47 clarifies exactly what they were added to - I think there is little debate about that point - added to the church. However, in considering this passage, what is the order of events here? Is it not "received his word" (saved), then "baptised", then "added unto them" (the church: see vs 47)? It is very clear that baptism comes before being added to the church - so if we believe that baptism is not part of salvation (and I certainly believe that baptism is not part of salvation), then we have to understand a couple of things from this passage. These people were added not to the group of all believers, for that is salvation, and they were clearly baptised BEFORE being added. The church being spoken of here MUST be a local church, or else you MUST follow after baptism being a part of salvation. The order is clearly noted - "received his word" (saved), then "baptised", then "added unto them" (the church: see vs 47). And before someone tries to make this baptism something other than water baptism: Act 2:38 (38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Peter, in this verse is clearly noting that "baptism" in this context is a separate thing to the "receiving of the Holy Spirit". This baptism IS NOT HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM, because Peter say it is not...... (And I don't believe that Peter is teaching baptism is part of salvation either, but if we go down that trail we will simply be adding confusion - one passage at a time folks.) Funny isn't it, that my use of these passages seems to support baptismal regeneration - but ONLY if you accept the idea of a universal church - if the Bible is speaking of a local church ONLY in this passage, then it absolutely defies the concept of baptismal regeneration...….
  20. Many, many years ago I came across "The C.H. Spurgeon Collection" for a super bargain basement price - so I grabbed it. Now I am not a huge Spurgeon fan, but I can appreciate his body of work. When we upgraded the church computer, we went to a 64bit system, and it seems as though no matter what I do, the Ages software will not load. I have downloaded the PDF's from the disk (that is the storage format), but the beauty of the software is that it gives a great index system. I can print the index, but then have to go and find the individual PDF files - painful...…. (21st century problems hey?! ) So, any of you pooter gurus know of any way to get this thing working? Extra info: I have tried compatibility mode - the problem is that the program appears to be totally incompatible with a 64bit system. Extra extra info: Win 10, on a pooter that is less than 2 years old, and still well capable of keeping up with anything that I need to run. It NEVER gives me performance issues. And yes - I have wanted to reference some of this material in the last two years since our Pooter upgrade, just not enough to find the disk and do it. I came across the disk the other day whilst looking for something else and thought I should load it up. Extra, extra, extra info - It seems like the Ages software site has not been maintained in this respect - I would be more than happy to get a link showing otherwise. Thanks folks, Dave.
  21. I recently spoke to a kind hearted gentleman who simply wants to help the homeless, the fatherless, and the helpless in my community. He came across a "ministry" of Joyce Meyers, called Hand of Hope, and decided that it sounded just like what he wanted to be involved in. Turns out that if he pays them $1000, they will make up to a million dollars available to him to start a Hand of Hope supported ministry to the homeless. So he stumped up $1000 to Joyce Meyers, and is now waiting for the next step...…... If this came in a letter from Nigeria, hardly anyone would give it a second look, because it would obviously be a scam, but Joyce Meyers name on it, and this guy - and I can only assume many others, throw money at them. It will be interesting to see what happens. If they have a million dollars to give out, why do they need his $1000? And they told him to download a phone app so they talk privately. Anyone else heard of this sort of thing? - I did a brief search but couldn't turn up any other instances of people being required to donate before getting this help.
  22. Were the 12 disciples saved? (aside from Judas)? Were they gathered together for the purpose of serving the Lord and doing His will? Were they baptised? Were they organised and orderly? What more did the disciples and Jesus need to be classified as a church? If it swims like a duck, and flies like a duck, if it waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, what do you think it might be?
  23. What are the requirements for a church to be a church?
  24. Not many IFB churches officially identify as such - most just call themselves independent Baptist. It is the clear reliance on the Bible, and the intent to follow the Bible in all things that separates a poor church from a fundamental Baptist church.
  25. Well, Jesus is talking to the disciples at that time - the obvious conclusion is that they are the church he was talking to. They were baptized believers, they were organized as displayed by the fact that they had a Pastor and a treasurer, and they were gathered to do the will of God - what else do they need to be a church?

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...