Jump to content

DaveW

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

    5,580
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    212

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from HappyChristian in Pensacola Bible institute   
    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.
    Sin?
    Qualifications?
    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.
  2. Like
    DaveW reacted to Jim_Alaska in “Move Forward” or “Stand Still”—Which is it?   
    To my fossilized way of thinking, mission boards are one step away from an association or convention. I know, I am "old school", but I am not of the school that justifies a mission board's existence with the statement that "Few churches possess the personnel or capability to provide all the services and know-how needed to adequately assist a missionary who has been called to serve in a faraway place." I say this from personal experience where our small (40 member) local church helped and fully supported two of our missionary families to Far East Russia against all odds.
    I am a believer of and fully convinced that if God calls, He is fully able to supply every need.
  3. Thanks
    DaveW got a reaction from John Young in Pensacola Bible institute   
    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.
    Sin?
    Qualifications?
    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.
  4. Like
    DaveW reacted to Alan in Why Don't Baptist Fast   
    Quite frankly, the title of this thread is misleading and somewhat deceitful. The title implies that Baptists do not fast and therefore Baptists are not spiritual and do not obey the admonition to fast. This is one of the reasons why I have never commented on this thread the years that I have been on Online Baptist. In other words, the title of this thread already insinuates that "Baptists" do not fast which is an error.
    Quite a few "Baptists" do fast; they just don't tell everyone about it.
    Why? The Lord Jesus said, "Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father, which seest in secret, shall reward thee openly." Matthew 6:16-18
    Normally, when I fast, and I am a Baptist, only my wife knows as she cooks the food I would normally eat and maybe the children.
    'nuff said.
  5. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from John Young in Pensacola Bible institute   
    I gotta say that I am distressed at the broad accusations made by SAB and directed at ANYONE who disagrees with his view.....
    I find it offensive.
    And juvenile.
  6. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from Alan in Pensacola Bible institute   
    I gotta say that I am distressed at the broad accusations made by SAB and directed at ANYONE who disagrees with his view.....
    I find it offensive.
    And juvenile.
  7. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from Alan in Introductions   
    Every single forum I have ever joined has had a policy of "introduce yourself" before you get stuck into the discussions.
    In some, it is actually necessary to have an introduction post before you can post in any other section.
    Is this possible with this forum software? 
    I understand that this is something brother Matt will probably have to address personally, but maybe a bit of discussion about it?
    Introductions are kinda important I think.
    And of course it may not even be possible under this platform, so it might all be moot.
  8. Like
    DaveW reacted to PastorMatt in Introductions   
    I do like this idea, and I will look into adding it to this software. 
  9. Like
    DaveW reacted to No Nicolaitans in Steven Anderson   
    John,
    I've read your previous statements on this matter. From reading them, I can "somewhat, but very slightly" see what you are saying and what you're trying to convey (though it isn't really that clear). 
    As you said...there are those who frequent Online Baptist. Unfortunately, they may (or may not) have read your other posts nor understood what you were trying to convey.
    I have to admit...like DaveW...and despite somewhat understanding your position...my overall impression (from what you have posted) has been that you are a supporter of Anderson.
    It would help if you would give a definitive answer as to whether you view him as someone that you would recommend to others.
  10. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from HappyChristian in Steven Anderson   
    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.
  11. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from HappyChristian in Steven Anderson   
    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".......
  12. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from wretched in Steven Anderson   
    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".......
  13. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from Jim_Alaska in Steven Anderson   
    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".......
  14. Like
    DaveW reacted to No Nicolaitans in Pensacola Bible institute   
    I understand. I hope you will be able to slow down at some point. I have worked like this for over 20 years. It takes a heavy toll on a person...at least, it has done so to me. I sometimes just stay at work and sleep two or three hours on an inflatable mattress, because I would get even less sleep if I went home and drove back to work. Please slow down if (and when) you can.
    I'm afraid that this is one area that we will probably never agree on. I recall from somewhere else on this forum, that you don't believe in looking at the Greek or Hebrew definitions. I do. I see that at times, by looking up Greek/Hebrew definitions, it will clarify definitions even more. I also see it as another avenue in which to "study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needed not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
    In the Greek, "house" and "home" have basically the same meaning; however, "house" is more in-depth and includes those who live in the "house"...which includes the wife.
    I feel we are running in circles. We both believe the same definition regarding "rule"...the different aspects of it. Yes, I would say that punishment applies to the wife as well; however, how one deals with a wife is far different than how one deals with all of the other examples you gave. Yes, there have been times; in which, I've had to "enforce rules" with my wife. I certainly won't go into details. During those times, it wasn't pleasurable for her nor me. However, I continued to love, provide, and care for her. One can enforce rules without being a tyrant and a bully. One can enforce rules without the attitude of "it's my way or the highway".
    How is that a political answer? It's the truth. Can you tell us any more about the father than what is revealed in the story? The only indication that I see of him being a good ruler before the incident was that the younger son recalled how well the father's servants were taken care of. We have nothing after the story. So no, I'm not ducking the question nor giving a political answer...I'm answering as honestly as I can.
    Both sons did not go prodigal. Only the younger son did...
    prodigal
    adjective
    1. spending money or resources freely and recklessly; wastefully extravagant.
    2. having or giving something on a lavish scale.
     
    noun
    a person who spends money in a recklessly extravagant way.
    Both sons got their inheritance at the same time, but only the younger son went prodigal. The older son didn't go prodigal; however, during that one moment, the older son showed anger, jealousy, and rebellion toward his father. Despite this, the father...rather than punishing him, he spoke to him in love and compassion; which at times, is a much more effective method to "enforce" others with.
    Well, we can judge by what God's word says about it.
    We're talking about a man who is in the position of a bishop not being a brawler...not what he did as a child.
    I was just trying to see how much you relied upon using Old Testament law to justify things.
    No, I'm saying that God said that. I don't understand it, but that's what it says.
    (14:a)  Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you:
    I am - present tense
    (14:b)  and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:
    I will - future tense
    15 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.
    I will - future tense
    16 And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the Lord, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the Lord: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.
    all future tense
    17 At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.
    I won't keep underlining things; they're all future
    18 In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.
    future
    So, the context is all future...except for the one part that you're trying to force into the future.
    Of course I believe that. All three members of the godhead are God, and they are one. Yet, they are also three distinct individuals (or persons). The word "prodigal" isn't in the Bible, but you used the word prodigal to describe the son who left his father's house and lived by wasteful and extravagant spending. I think most people have the wrong understanding in what prodigal means, but the word prodigal does explain the way the younger son lived. So, there was nothing wrong with you describing him as prodigal.
    At the same time, while those verses that you quoted don't mention the word person, each member of the godhead exhibits the traits that define what a person consists of. There is more to being a "person" than being a human being.
    Which brings me to Oneness Theology. Since you're unaware of what it is, Oneness theology basically teaches that there is no Trinity; there is only Jesus Christ...no Father, and no Holy Spirit. However, there are some off-shoots of it, that will agree that there is a Father and Holy Spirit; however, they are just different manifestations of Jesus Christ.
     
     
  15. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from Rebecca in Pensacola Bible institute   
    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.
  16. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from Rebecca in Pensacola Bible institute   
    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.
  17. Thanks
    DaveW got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Pensacola Bible institute   
    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.
  18. Like
    DaveW reacted to Jim_Alaska in Pastoring involves?   
    2 Timothy 4:2 (KJV) Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
  19. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from John Young in Pensacola Bible institute   
    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.
  20. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from John Young in Pensacola Bible institute   
    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.
  21. LOL
    DaveW reacted to Jim_Alaska in Pastor's Wednesday Eve. Teaching   
    I can't imagine why you would think you would be there a while.  Ya think??????
  22. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from Alan in Pensacola Bible institute   
    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.
  23. Like
    DaveW reacted to No Nicolaitans in Pensacola Bible institute   
    I feel that your definition of "rule" denotes only the negative aspects of a ruler.
    Not all who rule are bad, evil, unfair, or serve their own self-interests...
    Romans 13:3, Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24
    God himself has commanded that the wife be in subjection to her own husband.
    If you want to know how a husband is to rule over his wife the correct, loving, and godly way, perhaps this will help?
    Ephesians 5:22-33
    To "rule" involves more than laying down the law and enforcing it. It involves taking care of those under you, loving them, tending to their needs, protecting them, nurturing them, guiding them, and much more. So yes indeed...if a husband can't rule his own house well (wife included), how can he take care of the church of God?
    See...God even says what he meant by "rule" in the same verse...
    (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
  24. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from Alan in Pensacola Bible institute   
    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.
  25. Like
    DaveW reacted to Alan in Pensacola Bible institute   
    Brethren,
    My reply to SAB76 is written in red.
    No matter how a person uses "to" or "of" or uses the word "wife", 1 Timothy 3:4-5 is very clear that a divorced man cannot be the pastor, or bishop, or elder, of a church because if he cannot take care of his own house well than he cannot take care of the church.
    As a personal note. Throughout my years in the ministry I have noticed that many men, who will not accept being denied being a pastor due to being divorced, will try every reasoning, every excuse,  in order to force the interpretation that SAB76 is presenting and will ignore the clear words of 1 Timothy 2:4 & 5," "One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) If a man is the pastor of the church and cannot rule one wife well than he does not have the ability, or calling from God as according to the scriptures, to take care of the church of God.
    Alan

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...