Wilchbla

OK, but last night Huckabee made it sound like that they would only continue to be a pro traditional family business but he dodged the question about whether they would continue to give money.

Huckabee was on O'Reilly tonight and O'Reilly asked him if Chick-fil-A was going to stop giving money to pro traditional marriage groups and Huckabee dodged the question.

And here's the rest of the story...

http://www.wnd.com/2...il-a-fairytale/

So according to the sodomite controlled media pro "traditional marriage groups" are the same as "anti-gay groups".

Why would the sodomites lie about this? It would only make them look bad and Chick-fil-A look good. If anything the sex perverts would want to make Chick-fil-A look as mean and bigoted as possible. I think there is some truth to the OP. Chick-fil-A the end of the day is a business and ostracizing any group of people, including sex perverts, is not good for business. They need to figure out how please both sides. I'm still convinced that Chick-fil-a will eventually side with the perverts because the sodomites (like most liberals) will keep at it relentlessly until the opposition caves.

He doesn't call himself a brider even though he says some would claim him that. There are many definitions when it comes to "Baptist Brider". I find nothing in his doctrine that would cause me to shy away from promoting the school. No one will ever agree 100% with the doctrine of a school. All the free schools I have looked into have much greater problems. Even the ones you have to pay for online I have found have bigger issues with when it comes to doctrine.

Yeah, you'll always find something that will be off. But you can't argue with the fact that it's free.

I find it interesting that some Baptists claim Baptists have existed forever but not always under that name yet they don't acknowledge "Baptist" churches today who exist under a different name.

Much of the efforts to claim a direct line to the Apostles, and thus to Jesus, by some Baptists seems very much like the attempts of the RCC, Orthodox and others to do the same.

Bible believers have always existed, not Baptists. The mistake is made that Baptists have been around since Pentecost (or some say since John the Baptist) because Baptists generally make up the largest block of bible believing Christians. There may come a day where the Baptist label will not be used any more by bible believing Christians because of apostasy among Baptist churches.

They'll eventually cave like everyone else. They'll start feeling bad after enough Christians start quoting bible verses to them about how mean and unloving they are or that they need to sit and have a dialogue with the queers. Their conscience will falsely accuse them then it will be "Celebration Homo Day". (See, even some of you twitched when I used the words "queer" and "homo".)

Actually, it says Scriptural baptism, not Spiritual baptism.

Good catch.

But in th quote from his class above you wrote "spiritual baptism" to get into the church. To me that would not be water baptism. However when we look at "Baptism" to be a member of a church, there are many many Baptist churches that require you to be baptised to become a member of the church. Matter of fact all the Baptist churches I know require you to have been baptised or get baptised to be a member of their church. and that includes IFB, and SBC baptist churches.

No, the quote SFIC mentions is definitely brider doctrine. We are automatically baptized in the church at salvation. The author just thinks that water baptism is spiritual baptism.

That being said this doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't join the institute. Just don't swallow everything they teach without examining the scripture for yourself.

Me and mom had Arby's. My favorite fast food place.

Is it Baptist Brider? What did they say to make you think this?

I sent in my application to enroll. Has anyone here checked it out? I believe someone here was actually taking classes?

ANyone know how in-depth the classes are? Challenging?

thanks

Did you ask about this on another website?

I tried checking out their curriculum but for some reason I couldn't get their pdf file open with Adobe.

I'm not new to the idea of eternal security, but let me get this straight. Are you saying that if a person genuinely professes faith in Christ, yet at some later point renounces, or de-converts, that person is still actually saved? What I understand you to be saying is this person is still saved and will go to heaven, but that person's status in heaven is less than it would otherwise be. Am I understanding you correctly? I'm not in any way attempting to argue...I honestly want to be sure I understand what you are saying.

What does the passage of scripture say? If we believe not he abides faithful. He cannot deny himself. If we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone then we are part of him. If he was to deny us in essence he'd be denying himself. The gifts and calling of God is without repentance.

So you would apply this statement to the MV's? The Message for example?

No. When all the translations contradict each other than they can't all be right. Not if there is such a thing as the plenary, verbal, infallible, inerrant words of God. If you believe that God only preserved his "Message" than, yes, all the translations could be right. Or they could be wrong. Or most likely a combination of both and you have to let the unsaved scholars out of Germany and England figure it out for you.

It's clear that Paul was referring to copies of the scriptures in II Timothy 3:15,16 unless Timothy had a copy of the "originals" laying around the house. Which I doubt. They wouldn't even have had the originals down at the local synagogue. So it had to be copies of the originals that Paul was referring to.

Now, some of the brethren think that the Greek and Hebrew languages themselves were magical and that the word of God could only reside in them and once translated into a different language they lost all that magic. Others, like Rick Norris, claim that the Greek word for"scriptures" in verse 15 is different than the Greek word for "scripture" in verse 16. The former referring to copies and the latter referring to the originals. These folks always have a way to get around the truth.

I believe that the KJV is the preserved Word of God for English speaking people, but every time a translation is made, things are lost in the translation.

Where do you get this from? Do you have a scripture to back this statement? My bible says ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God. The context of the passage is in reference to copies too.

Wilchbla - agreed, excelent school but far more focused on teaching how to preach and rightly divide the Word than on "theology". More a focus on hands on than head knowledge.

Yes, if I remember right it was a requirement to go soul winning even if you took their correspodence course.

I studied for a while through TBDI (http://www.tbdi.org/)

This is a very good school. I've been to a revival at Dr. Estep's church where Dr. Peacock was one of the preachers and I can still to this day 17 years later remember the message he preached. Also, the best book I've ever owned on dispensationalism was written by Dr. Walker.

I will use a lexicon to give me the meaning of proper names and that's it.

May I ask, if they claim their exclusively KJ yet they go to the Greek, teach Greek, can they be what they say they are.

I know many of our posters are KJ only, yet some still go back to the Greek some, & others quite a bit, maybe a few, never.

OK, I've never been to a college but I have owned tape recordings of classes taking place in a bible institute (KJV Only). The teacher said they taught Hebrew and Greek for a couple reasons:

1) Like I mentioned before in another post, because most Christians won't give you the time of day if you don't know these things. If you don't sound educated or know the "original languages" they won't listen to you.

2) So you can debate the bible scholars on their own level.

3) To prove that at the end of the day that the bible correctors really don't care what the original languages say or what the manuscript evidence reveals.

4) To strengthen the believers faith in the preservation of the word of God.

My husband and I 10 years ago got married into a non demnionational Bible Church, they taught the truth the best they can and we loved the church. With that church I was able to attend a ladies overnight at the church called fall fling , that night we played games , learned about the Bible and did the white elephant gift exchange and crafts , then we had a great breakfast and so on, it was a blast , I wish I can get a church to do this for the ladies. Its was very fun but other then that back on topic. I am tired of people calling non Catholics protestants and we are Bible Believers.

You have to find what church you can. I'm not sure where you are from but in many parts of this country there are very few IFB churches. Some of the brethren in the South don't seem to understand this. Some will tell you to move which is impossible for many to do. The only other option is not to go to church at all which is ridiculous.

It seems then for nearly 2,000 years the most effective preachers, evangelists and pastors for Christ had it wrong.

John. If I believe the gospel and want to be saved yet at the same time I'm not ready to give up my drinking alcohol can I still be saved?

As my wife is now 4 months with our first I need to start prepping for homeschooling. As I work from home and am more suited to the task we have decided that I will be responsible for this and seeing that I wasn't the best kid at school all advice would be appreciated.

Make sure you know the laws of your state and county. Join one of these homeschooling groups too if you can. There is strength in numbers and when the state comes after you for something usually it helps when you are part of one of the associations.

My brother and his wife homeschooled both their kids. They are now both cops in Roanoke, VA. The younger one did attend college and got his associates degree. It's a rough road to travel sometimes. Expect some people to give you a lot of grief about it at first. Especially any unsaved family members. Try to find some good tutors to help you with the studies that may be beyond your understanding. My brother and his wife did this by hiring a girl who lived across the street that was really good in math. They even got her to go to church with them and I think she eventually got saved.

Yes, I know they claim its by grace though faith, yet that is not what they really mean. they add to that, with baptizing & church membership, and I know your not a friend of us Baptist.

It was the Anglicans who were the main reason the Pilgrims left England. Also, a study of early Baptist history here in America will tell you how bad the Baptists were treated by the Anglicans and Puritans (non-conformists within the Church of England) here in America. This is what led to the separation of church and state here in America.

That being said you can still find good stuff from Anglicans also. They were Anglicans who translated the KJV. There's George Whitefield.

The bible says that every man will receive praise from the Lord at the judgement seat of Christ (I Cor. 4:5). If our Lord Jesus Christ himself can find some good then I'm sure we can also. We need to show more grace and balance in these matters.

At the same time the book was disturbing when reading of the many false applications of Scripture and false views of what gets one to heaven.

What exactly are the false applications and views, John? What does he actually say verbatim? Other than his comment about Catholics and Orthodox?

Any man who stands against trials and tribulation even if he is off on his doctrine can be used to build up the faith of a believer. It has for me. I don't understand how you can't see this. Even Jesus would give him credit here. You seem to be only focused on the man's alleged false teachings yet when it comes to his suffering for the kingdom you glance over it as historical information about communism. That's pretty harsh in my estimate. Again, at the end of the journey what determines our place within the kingdom of God as co-heirs is our suffering with Christ. Not how straight we were in our doctrine. Some of the churches that John wrote to were screwed up in doctrine and allowed wickedness within their churches yet the Lord still found a place to give them praise. You need to be a little more balance in this matter. Heck, even I find a place to give credit to John Calvin who heresies have done far worse damage than Richard Wurmbrand. Plus, Richard never had anyone burnt at the stake.

He did have an interesting take on obediance to authority in one of his books, that we should only obey that authority that obeys God. Romans 13 then does not mean that Christians should obey evil governments.

This brings back the old argument.

Weren't the governments of Paul's time evil when Paul wrote those verses in Romans 13?

God's love for the world goes only as far as the cross. He gave his Son. That was his act of love. Nothing suggest that his love extends any further than that. Any love God may show towards his enemies is so they will repent (Romans 2:4). This should be the same for us. So I don't totally agree with the general statement that God "loves the sinner but hate the sin." I think it's limited.

Also, the "eye for and eye" teaching was a commandment against personal vengeance. The civil authorities still have a right to take an eye for an eye. If not there would have a complete breakdown of justice (just as important to God as love) and the victory of the criminal over the law abider in every area of society.

A lot of this modern teaching of God's love and forgiveness is not biblical and comes out of the liberal theologies of the early 20th century.