Seth Doty

Unless I am mistaken you have to sign up to get those e-mails. Since that is the case the only people that get the "warnings" are those who have at least some interest in what cloud has to say at least some of the time. It is just a person giving his opinion and you may or may not agree with him on any particular issue. How many people do or do not value his opinion or listen to him has nothing to do with anything strictly speaking. I get the impression your biggest problem with it is that cloud has a fairly wide audience and therefore you seem to think he should be more careful about expressing his opinions. To me though these kind of things are just his opinions which people can take or leave as they see fit.

Unless I am mistaken you have to sign up to get those e-mails. Since that is the case the only people that get the "warnings" are those who have at least some interest in what cloud has to say at least some of the time. It is just a person giving his opinion and you may or may not agree with him on any particular issue. How many people do or do not value his opinion or listen to him has nothing to do with anything strictly speaking. I get the impression your biggest problem with it is that cloud has a fairly wide audience and therefore you seem to think he should be more careful about expressing his opinions. To me though these kind of things are just his opinions which people can take or leave as they see fit.

You know I think we probably agree 98% of the time but I just don't see that. That kind of thinking is one of the things that eventually can lead to pastors going astray. If they are only exposed to people that either say they are wonderful or horrible it can become a temptation to believe the people who say they are wonderful and ignore all criticism. I have seen pastors like that and I am sure you have too. If someone says they consider so and so to still be a good pastor but think they have a fault in a given area what is the great harm in that? We say and believe pastors are just men and fallible so what is the problem with publicly naming names and saying you think so and so is wrong in a given area? You may or may not agree on a particular issue but why is it necessary to sweep all disagreements under the rug and publicly pretend that there is no disagreement until things get so bad they explode?

This is not referring to this situation in particular as I do not and never have read the "sword of the Lord" nor do I really know that "crowd" and thus have no opinion one way or another. More of a general observation.

Obviously she is a little upset because she feels like her husband was disrespected. Perfectly normal reaction. Your out of line and your accusations are foolish. Chill. :coffee2:

I don't know why this should be a problem. If the man is willing to speak there than that is a public thing and if cloud or anyone else does or doesn't like that they are free to say so. It is that pastors call about whether or not to preach there, it is clouds call about whether or not to condemn it, and anyone can make their own call about whether or not such a thing matters to them. No big deal.

You know I think we probably agree 98% of the time but I just don't see that. That kind of thinking is one of the things that eventually can lead to pastors going astray. If they are only exposed to people that either say they are wonderful or horrible it can become a temptation to believe the people who say they are wonderful and ignore all criticism. I have seen pastors like that and I am sure you have too. If someone says they consider so and so to still be a good pastor but think they have a fault in a given area what is the great harm in that? We say and believe pastors are just men and fallible so what is the problem with publicly naming names and saying you think so and so is wrong in a given area? You may or may not agree on a particular issue but why is it necessary to sweep all disagreements under the rug and publicly pretend that there is no disagreement until things get so bad they explode?

This is not referring to this situation in particular as I do not and never have read the "sword of the Lord" nor do I really know that "crowd" and thus have no opinion one way or another. More of a general observation.

I don't know why this should be a problem. If the man is willing to speak there than that is a public thing and if cloud or anyone else does or doesn't like that they are free to say so. It is that pastors call about whether or not to preach there, it is clouds call about whether or not to condemn it, and anyone can make their own call about whether or not such a thing matters to them. No big deal.

Obviously she is a little upset because she feels like her husband was disrespected. Perfectly normal reaction. Your out of line and your accusations are foolish. Chill. :coffee2:

I understand that to a point, but realistically people will justify just about anything they want to do in one way or another.

Regardless of your opinion on the subject probably somewhere around 40-50%(though the % continues to shrink) of IFB's think it is either outright wrong or at the least inadvisable. Given that there is no disagreement at all about whether or not it is proper for a lady to wear a dress if it is making a mountain out of nothing then why would someone not defer in this area? Things that are truly "nothing" do not result in significant disagreements because one side or the other simply does not care and is willing to defer to the other. On this issue though deference is rarely shown because one side thinks it is wrong or at the least inadvisable and the other side views it as a convenience issue that they don't want to give up.

Well if your as outspoken with your opinions on the subject at your church as you are on this forum it is little wonder he knows. Perhaps he merely means he does not count or generally see who gives what in the offerings. Many pastors try to avoid that for obvious reasons when possible. Makes it easier on them and on others as well.

Well if your as outspoken with your opinions on the subject at your church as you are on this forum it is little wonder he knows. Perhaps he merely means he does not count or generally see who gives what in the offerings. Many pastors try to avoid that for obvious reasons when possible. Makes it easier on them and on others as well.

America these days reminds me so much of Israel in the Old Testament. Just as the Jews turned away from God and were stricken with one wicked leader after another, so I can see the same thing happening in America.

Good post. Concerning the OP God did not send his son to die for mankind in order to get glory. Christ DID die for the "happiness" of man. That is not humanism it is bible. John 3:16 should prove that as do many other scriptures. Now a Christian should care about God's glory and glorifying God but that is a product of loving God not the beginning and the end of all things. Look at how God reasons with sinners throughout the scriptures? How often does he say just "worship me because I am glorious and I deserve it and that settles it." Is that true? Of course, but God generally reasons with mankind by saying something along the lines of "if you obey my words it will go well with you, I will bless you and give you joy. If you don't you will be miserable and will suffer for it". Now if God says that it seems rather obvious that there is nothing wrong with that approach. The scriptures say the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and if a person hears and believes Gods warnings and promises it doesn't matter in the least how interested they are in Gods glory at that point and how much is just a genuine fear and understanding of what will happen if they don't. Now, if they truly believe and trust in God their heart will be changed and they will begin to care more and more about honoring and glorifying God as they grow and learn to love him more, but that doesn't change the fact that God loves mankind, and mankind meant enough to God that a holy God was willing to send his son to become sin for us in order to save us. That had everything to do with love and nothing to do with glory even though glory is one of the byproducts.

The problem comes not when people come to God out of a fear of what will happen if they don't, but when they don't really come to God at all because they were not afraid ENOUGH to really turn to God. All that happened is they got a little scared and "trusted" God as a "just in case" sort of thing rather than out of a genuine and serious fear of the Lord. As a result they never do grow and they never do care about honoring God because it never was truly and seriously real to them. It was a "what if" situation to them, like when people can be scared or get tense when watching a war movie. That is a feeling, but not really the same feeling as actually hearing real bullets go by. In order to have their heart in a position to be saved a person must be hearing "real bullets" go by rather than just watching it in a movie metaphorically speaking.

No, God does not "need" to be worshiped, but he desires it. It is evident that that an eternal God who is from everlasting to everlasting cannot "need" anyone or anything else outside of himself. As for "whose benefit" worshiping God is for, it is beneficial both to God and to man and produces joy on both ends. As to why we are commanded to worship him it comes down to the fact that he is the only one worthy of worship. Also as we worship God in spirit and in truth in many ways we become more like him and that also produces joy on both ends. After all what did God say when he created man? He created man to be in his image and in his likeness right? Also what does the Holy Spirit try to do in the lives of believers after they turn to Christ? Conform them into Christs image right? I think that it is pretty safe to say that that is Gods goal for man.

From this point on there frequently comes a major basic belief split depending if one has calvinist leanings or is apposed to that teaching.

A Calvinist might say that God did this just because he felt like it, which in a sense is true, but Calvinists ultimately tend to feel that God does not really care about his creation he simply cares about himself. A Calvinist's logic is basically when you boil it all down that God's purposes, plans, and actions are frequently what we would call selfish, evil, and so forth if anyone else did them, but because God is God and the creator he can do those kind of things and they are actually good just because he has the right to do them.

Now, someone like myself who strongly apposes that doctrine does not tend to believe that God has one basic set of rules he lives by and a totally different set of rules for everyone else. Obviously there are a handful of things that it is only right for God to do(such as receive worship) but those things tend to be because God is completely perfect, Holy, and worthy while we are not. By and large I believe the rules God gives us are who he is himself. They are his character. I do not believe God is REALLY the sort of being that would be considered overall to be selfish, twisted, and downright evil if he was anyone but God and that it is ok for him to do that and be that way simply because he is God. NO. That is a very wrong perspective of who God is, and it is why I feel Calvinism is either solid blasphemy or coming very close to it. It isn't about what God has a "right" to do, it is about who he IS. Who he IS determines what he does and who he IS is revealed in scripture. I believe God does not want us to be selfish because he is not selfish, I believe God wants us to speak the truth because he is truth, I believe he wants us to be kind because he is kind. He desires to conform us into his image and make us like him. God is light and in him is no darkness at all. There is a reason why the law written in a mans heart tells him that God as pictured by Calvinism would be evil and not worth serving, creator or not. Now of course God's ways are higher than man's ways and we may not always understand everything he does, but we can trust him because we know his character and we know he is good, and does not merely regard mankind as a plaything to be raised up or smashed at whim just because he "can".

I know this wasn't about Calvinism per se but it was a question about who God is and why he does what he does and that question is right at the root of Calvinism vs. the biblical view of God.

No, God does not "need" to be worshiped, but he desires it. It is evident that that an eternal God who is from everlasting to everlasting cannot "need" anyone or anything else outside of himself. As for "whose benefit" worshiping God is for, it is beneficial both to God and to man and produces joy on both ends. As to why we are commanded to worship him it comes down to the fact that he is the only one worthy of worship. Also as we worship God in spirit and in truth in many ways we become more like him and that also produces joy on both ends. After all what did God say when he created man? He created man to be in his image and in his likeness right? Also what does the Holy Spirit try to do in the lives of believers after they turn to Christ? Conform them into Christs image right? I think that it is pretty safe to say that that is Gods goal for man.

From this point on there frequently comes a major basic belief split depending if one has calvinist leanings or is apposed to that teaching.

A Calvinist might say that God did this just because he felt like it, which in a sense is true, but Calvinists ultimately tend to feel that God does not really care about his creation he simply cares about himself. A Calvinist's logic is basically when you boil it all down that God's purposes, plans, and actions are frequently what we would call selfish, evil, and so forth if anyone else did them, but because God is God and the creator he can do those kind of things and they are actually good just because he has the right to do them.

Now, someone like myself who strongly apposes that doctrine does not tend to believe that God has one basic set of rules he lives by and a totally different set of rules for everyone else. Obviously there are a handful of things that it is only right for God to do(such as receive worship) but those things tend to be because God is completely perfect, Holy, and worthy while we are not. By and large I believe the rules God gives us are who he is himself. They are his character. I do not believe God is REALLY the sort of being that would be considered overall to be selfish, twisted, and downright evil if he was anyone but God and that it is ok for him to do that and be that way simply because he is God. NO. That is a very wrong perspective of who God is, and it is why I feel Calvinism is either solid blasphemy or coming very close to it. It isn't about what God has a "right" to do, it is about who he IS. Who he IS determines what he does and who he IS is revealed in scripture. I believe God does not want us to be selfish because he is not selfish, I believe God wants us to speak the truth because he is truth, I believe he wants us to be kind because he is kind. He desires to conform us into his image and make us like him. God is light and in him is no darkness at all. There is a reason why the law written in a mans heart tells him that God as pictured by Calvinism would be evil and not worth serving, creator or not. Now of course God's ways are higher than man's ways and we may not always understand everything he does, but we can trust him because we know his character and we know he is good, and does not merely regard mankind as a plaything to be raised up or smashed at whim just because he "can".

I know this wasn't about Calvinism per se but it was a question about who God is and why he does what he does and that question is right at the root of Calvinism vs. the biblical view of God.

I always found it rather humorous in a not so funny sort of way that the rainbow has been adopted as a symbol of a evil lifestyle considering what God created it for according to the scriptures. Given that the worldwide flood was sent to destroy man for the utter corruption man as a whole had given himself up to, and given that God, according to the scriptures, created the rainbow as a visible covenant that he would not again destroy the earth by flood it always seemed funny to me that they would chose it as their symbol and wave their rainbow banners in their parades. Sort of like they are unconsciously "reminding" God that he promised not to destroy the whole earth again with a flood for their utter corruption. They failed to read the fine print though, no more worldwide floods, judgement will eventually come as worldwide fire instead...

:beatdeadhorse:

I understand where your coming from but try not to let it get on your nerves too much. Stressing over it will not do you any good. It is what it is. I am sure you know the vast majority of IFB's do not see eye to eye with SFIC on this. :coolsmiley:

As I said, I believe a pastor should basically "make" about the median income of the church families. Our church is about like that. We don't make as much as the richest people in our church, and we aren't as poor as the poorest people in our church. We live "median". And that "median" would change depending on the cost of living of whatever area a person lived.

And the nice thing about a "local independent church" is that its nobody else's business how much the pastor makes or does not make. That's between each church and God.

I find that most of the times in IFB churches, the problem is not size or pay. Usually high paid pastors are in the convention or modern churches. I have rarely met an IFB pastor that made "too much money". I've met plenty that are being underpaid.

Baptism of water does not "wash away" sin in any manner. Repentance toward God and faith in Christ allows Christs blood to do that. What physical baptism is is a symbol of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and identification with him.

Specifically though in john 3:5 the "born of water" is referring to a persons initial physical birth, not baptism. See Romans 14:17 for a definition of what the "kingdom of God" is as well. The "kingdom of God" is the blessed state a Christian lives in after salvation as long as they remain in obedience to Christ.

Your confusing two different things. I don't think many if any on this board would deny that the MV's contain some of the word of God, but that doesn't make them Gods inerrant preserved scriptures as a whole. For example if I were to tell a lost person "if you don't repent and turn to Christ trusting in him alone for salvation your going to one day die and go to hell" is that the word of God? Yes it is in a sense, because it accurately expresses the truth found in the scriptures. However it obviously is not scripture itself, it is merely an explanation of the truth of scripture and the accuracy of the statement depends on how well it conforms to the actual scriptures.

That is what your talking about.

Do not confuse that with the divinely & perfectly preserved scriptures themselves though. The bible itself uses the term "holy" to describe the scriptures. For example:

"2 Timothy 3:15 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."

Note that the apostle Paul calls the scriptures "holy" when speaking to timothy. Remember that they did not have the original copies of the old testament scriptures he was speaking of any more than we have the original copies of either the old or new testament scriptures. Yet in spite of that Paul, under the inspiration of God, calls the scriptures "holy" because God had and still has perfectly preserved the scriptures. In truth, most of the users of the MV's(at least if they have studied the issues enough to understand them) do not even believe what their bible says on the cover let alone the contents. It may say "holy bible" but they don't really believe that, they believe that some parts are of God & some parts contain errors and they get to pick and choose which is which. If one takes that approach I fail to see how one could possibly genuinely believe the scriptures are holy as they claim to be.

Rare is correct. Typically baptists, or at least IFB's, are not exactly going to be trying to "cast out" demons as if there is some method or ritual to go through. When and if it one is ever confronted with a demon possessed or at least very possibly demon possessed person the best response is usually a combination of prayer for the person & reading/quoting scripture. None of this "I command you to come out" demon of fill in the blank as Pentecostals or what not might do. Serious spiritual battles are not typically won through carnal or showy methods. It isn't Christians that "cast out" demons anyway, it is God who does that. If your ever forced to deal with that sort of situation it is best for you to talk to God and let his word do the talking when your speaking to the person/demon.

Practically speaking this is not a common thing to deal with anyway so it should be of minimal concern...

In point of fact the KJV borrowed heavily from Tyndales earlier translation. There are some differences here and there of course, but if you read the tyndale NT you will realize just how closely the language of the KJV follows tyndales translation much of the time. See it here and compare it to the KJV. http://faithofgod.net/WTNT/

In point of fact the KJV borrowed heavily from Tyndales earlier translation. There are some differences here and there of course, but if you read the tyndale NT you will realize just how closely the language of the KJV follows tyndales translation much of the time. See it here and compare it to the KJV. http://faithofgod.net/WTNT/