Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Seth Doty

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

    803
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from LindaR in Dichotomy vs Trichotomy   
    The verses that teach the immortality of the soul are almost to numerous to list. Here is one of many examples:

    "Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."





    Like man, God is body, soul, and Spirit. Jesus Christ has a physical body, the Father and the Holy Spirit do not. All three are distinct persons or "souls" which is why God sometimes speaks in plural: "let us make man in our image, after our likeness" etc.

    The body is what can be felt/touched.. the physical. The "soul" is basically the mind/will/emotions. The "spirit" is a even deeper part of who you are and it is this part that is capable of understanding/discerning "spiritual" matters, accepting/rejecting/communicating/ becoming one with Gods Spirit. It can control the soul which in turn controls the body. The "heart" as it is used in scripture is a combination of both soul and spirit. I agree that the spirit of man is what died at the fall, but all three parts of man, body, soul, and spirit exist after death in both the lost and the believer. The spirit and soul of the believer never dies, while the soul and spirit of the lost abide in death, which is not the same thing as unconsciousness. Eventually a new body for both believers and unbelievers comes at the resurrection.
  2. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from LindaR in Could they be angels?   
    Seems sort of irrelevant to me if he that "letteth" is specifically speaking of the Holy Spirit or an angel as it is six of one and a half dozen of the other. After all all the angels are is ministers of God and the the only reason their powers are superior to the powers of darkness is because of God.

    "Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."
  3. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from 2Tim215 in Calvinism on the March   
    As a dispensationalist this is how I would describe Gods plan/plans. First off God has a perfect will/plan of what would be the very best way. This is the way things would be if everyone did exactly what God told them to do. At any point man has been given the free will to follow that perfect will of God or do something else. In that sense man can "overrule" Gods best plan. On the other hand God being omniscient is always an infinite number of steps ahead of man and therefore man can never surprise God and do something God hadn't already planned for. In that sense man cannot change Gods plans because God knows what the free will choice of man will be before man makes it. For example, the fall of man. It was Gods "best" plan that man obey him and thus never sin and fall. However God being omniscient knew that man would choose to sin and therefore God had already planned for that from the foundation of the world. The fact that God is omniscient and not bound by time in no way means mans choice is not free though.

    In the case of Israel they could have accepted him as the messiah, it was a genuine offer(Matthew 12:7 etc.), but of course God being a infinite number of steps ahead of them knew they would choose to reject him which is why it was prophesied throughout the OT.
  4. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from Standing Firm In Christ in Repentance - Biblical Viewpoint   
    Yes, we are not going to agree with you that repentance, which is a directional change of the heart, is unnecessary for true belief and salvation to occur. Like the parable of the sower which Jesus told, some ground/hearts are in a condition that they can receive the seed and some are not. If the soil in a persons heart is stony it doesn't matter if you get them to pray a prayer or not, the seed cannot take root. The seed requires good soil in order to grow, it doesn't grow in any type of soil or on the rocks. Repentance of the heart changes that old stony soil that loves sin and doesn't care about what God says to that good soil that receives the seed and allows it to take root and grow.
  5. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from LindaR in Repentance - Biblical Viewpoint   
    Yes, we are not going to agree with you that repentance, which is a directional change of the heart, is unnecessary for true belief and salvation to occur. Like the parable of the sower which Jesus told, some ground/hearts are in a condition that they can receive the seed and some are not. If the soil in a persons heart is stony it doesn't matter if you get them to pray a prayer or not, the seed cannot take root. The seed requires good soil in order to grow, it doesn't grow in any type of soil or on the rocks. Repentance of the heart changes that old stony soil that loves sin and doesn't care about what God says to that good soil that receives the seed and allows it to take root and grow.
  6. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from John81 in Repentance - Biblical Viewpoint   
    Yes, we are not going to agree with you that repentance, which is a directional change of the heart, is unnecessary for true belief and salvation to occur. Like the parable of the sower which Jesus told, some ground/hearts are in a condition that they can receive the seed and some are not. If the soil in a persons heart is stony it doesn't matter if you get them to pray a prayer or not, the seed cannot take root. The seed requires good soil in order to grow, it doesn't grow in any type of soil or on the rocks. Repentance of the heart changes that old stony soil that loves sin and doesn't care about what God says to that good soil that receives the seed and allows it to take root and grow.
  7. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from LindaR in Repentance - Biblical Viewpoint   
    In so far as I am aware no one on this board believes that the repentance that is necessary before salvation is cleaning yourself up, ceasing from sin or anything like that. It is a willful directional change of the heart.

    "1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come."

    The church at Thessaloniki is a case in point. They turned to God from idols. They didn't just add Jesus to their other idols(then they would have been catholics ), they had to choose to turn away from the idols in order to choose God. That is what repentance unto salvation is all about. Before you get married you have to be ready to enter into a specific and exclusive covenant with the individual your marrying, and likewise when you come to Christ for salvation your heart(not just the mind) must be turned toward him before you can be in a position to truly believe from the heart and be saved. If your heart is truly turned toward Christ then by default it must choose to turn away from sin. It is an either or situation, your heart can't be turned toward Christ and willfully hanging on to known sin at the same time. As it is written:

    "1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

    If you believe that a person can call on God and expect him to save them while willfully and knowingly holding on to sin then look at Psalm 66:18, Proverbs, 1:24-31, Ezekiel 14:1-8 etc.

    I also wonder how the idea that a person can be saved and live "like the devil"(indefinitely?) fits in with this and other similar NT passages:

    "Luke 6:43-46 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"

    Now to be clear a Christian can "live like the devil" temporarily if they so choose, but if they do so choose they will be miserable in that lifestyle and will be chastened by God until they either get right or until they "sin unto death" and God deals with them accordingly. They can't just live their whole life like a lost person without any kind of judgment from God if they are truly saved. Hebrews 12:6-13, 1st Corinthians 11:29-32, 1st John 5:16-17 etc.



    If you only knew how many arguments we have had with Calvinists over the years. It is pretty funny to accuse this board of being predominately Calvinist, I think your the first person who has ever felt that way. Anyway, sorry to see you go if you do decide to leave, as for what ever reason I get the impression that you are either just slightly misguided or misunderstanding and therefore hung up on what is meant by repentance. :saint2:
  8. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from swathdiver in Repentance - Biblical Viewpoint   
    I don't see how that explanation makes much sense, most of the time in the NT no context is given that would explain what they were to repent of. Contextually the word "repent" or "repentance" is usually treated as something that needs no explanation. Matthew 3:2, Matthew 4:17,Luke 13:3 etc. Those particular I examples mentioned earlier just happened to use repent and believe or repent & turn to God together which shows repentance and belief are not exactly the same thing.

    On another note, here you are defining repentance as a 180 degree change of mind, rather than just turning from unbelief, which I would agree with. Only thing I would argue is that it is also a change of heart, not just of mind.

    "Deuteronomy 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked."

    "Psalm 66:18 If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:"

    "Psalm 78:36-37 Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues. For their heart was not right with him, neither were they stedfast in his covenant."

    "Psalm 95:10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:"

    Take just one of those verses: "If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me". If this is true then how could anyone be saved without having had a change of heart as well as a change of mind? Repentance being a change of heart as well as a change of mind seems such a basic scriptural truth it is hard to see how it could even be argued against. Do you really think someone can merely say they believe on Jesus while coming to God in pride and unwillingness to re-line themselves with what they know to be his will and actually get saved?
  9. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from swathdiver in Repentance - Biblical Viewpoint   
    If repentance is simply turning from unbelief, no more, no less, then why is it treated as something separate from belief in the scriptures? Logically the opposite of unbelief is belief correct? If you are telling someone to turn from unbelief why tell them to believe at all? If they turned from unbelief the state of belief is the only other option. Therefore telling them to to repent and believe would seem superfluous. It would be only one step not two. If your definition of repentance was correct what would be the point of using the word repentance in the following scripture samples?

    "Mark 1:14-15 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."

    "Acts 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance."
  10. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from swathdiver in Repentance - Biblical Viewpoint   
    "Mark 1:14-15 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."

    "Mark 6:12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent."

    "Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

    "Luke 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent."

    "Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;"

    "Acts 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance."

    "Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,"

    I think the scriptures are pretty clear that repentance is a prerequisite before salvation can take place. The only "question" is what repentance is. It isn't cleaning yourself up and getting rid of sin in your life. It isn't exactly the same thing as belief and faith either though it is related. Rather it is both a mental and heart rejection of your current state/will/direction and a desire/willingness to align yourself with Gods will/way in so far as you are able to understand it at the time. I think someone mentioned that the philippian jailer was simply told "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." This is true. The reason for that though is that there is little need to wonder about whether a individual is at the point of repentance when that individual has fallen down trembling in front of you and is asking YOU what he needs to do in order to be saved rather than you trying to convince him he needs to be saved. Sort of a no brainer that that such a individual is very ready to believe, though they did apparently expound upon it a bit further. Scripturally the preaching of repentance is directed most often to those who are either flat rejecting God or only giving lip service with a heart that is not really ready to be right with God. The danger of not mentioning repentance at all is that it can give false assurance to those who are only mentally concurring with the gospel without a willing heart. Basically just giving lip service.
  11. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from rancher824 in Electronic devices in church   
    I think it would generally be better to avoid it if possible because that type of thing bugs some people, but strictly speaking it does not bother me personally. Could be one of those things that will be accepted as the new normal eventually.
  12. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from LindaR in 2 Chronicles 7:14   
    I agree that specifically the verse was/is directed to Israel but practically it has broad general application to Christians as well. God is always more inclined to work mightily when his people by and large are following his will.
  13. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from LindaR in Repentance - Biblical Viewpoint   
    I don't see how that explanation makes much sense, most of the time in the NT no context is given that would explain what they were to repent of. Contextually the word "repent" or "repentance" is usually treated as something that needs no explanation. Matthew 3:2, Matthew 4:17,Luke 13:3 etc. Those particular I examples mentioned earlier just happened to use repent and believe or repent & turn to God together which shows repentance and belief are not exactly the same thing.

    On another note, here you are defining repentance as a 180 degree change of mind, rather than just turning from unbelief, which I would agree with. Only thing I would argue is that it is also a change of heart, not just of mind.

    "Deuteronomy 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked."

    "Psalm 66:18 If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:"

    "Psalm 78:36-37 Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues. For their heart was not right with him, neither were they stedfast in his covenant."

    "Psalm 95:10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:"

    Take just one of those verses: "If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me". If this is true then how could anyone be saved without having had a change of heart as well as a change of mind? Repentance being a change of heart as well as a change of mind seems such a basic scriptural truth it is hard to see how it could even be argued against. Do you really think someone can merely say they believe on Jesus while coming to God in pride and unwillingness to re-line themselves with what they know to be his will and actually get saved?
  14. Thanks
    Seth Doty reacted to heartstrings in Calvinism on the March   
    I understand that particular sermon took it's text from Titus 2:11-15

    11For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Theres one for the TULIP theologians
    12Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
    13Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
    14Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
    15These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

    But you said this...


    Tell me something sir, if a saved person is not capable of "living a filthy rotten life", then why did Paul put verse 12 in Titus 2:2? Why the need to teach us to live godly if we are just going to do it automatically? 12Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

    Sir, we are not robots before we get saved, nor after. God enabled us all with a free will. We can choose evil or good. The thing about GRACE is that it is God's unmerited favor. He is the one who KEEPS me saved and If I sin He WILL chasten me. He might even kill me. I have TWO natures; a sin nature and the New nature. The one I FEED is the one which will prosper and control me. Why else would the Bible tell CHRISTIANS to walk in the Spirit and not the flesh? My FLESH still has lusts, the Bible says. If you are a child of God, you can do two things: Live for Jesus or suffer chastening or even go to an early grave.

    But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. That verse was spoken to Born again Christians. We are not reprogrammed robots, sir. We have WILLS and my Will chooses to reject Calvinistic doctrine, just like yours holds to it.
  15. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from LindaR in Repentance - Biblical Viewpoint   
    "Mark 1:14-15 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."

    "Mark 6:12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent."

    "Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

    "Luke 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent."

    "Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;"

    "Acts 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance."

    "Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,"

    I think the scriptures are pretty clear that repentance is a prerequisite before salvation can take place. The only "question" is what repentance is. It isn't cleaning yourself up and getting rid of sin in your life. It isn't exactly the same thing as belief and faith either though it is related. Rather it is both a mental and heart rejection of your current state/will/direction and a desire/willingness to align yourself with Gods will/way in so far as you are able to understand it at the time. I think someone mentioned that the philippian jailer was simply told "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." This is true. The reason for that though is that there is little need to wonder about whether a individual is at the point of repentance when that individual has fallen down trembling in front of you and is asking YOU what he needs to do in order to be saved rather than you trying to convince him he needs to be saved. Sort of a no brainer that that such a individual is very ready to believe, though they did apparently expound upon it a bit further. Scripturally the preaching of repentance is directed most often to those who are either flat rejecting God or only giving lip service with a heart that is not really ready to be right with God. The danger of not mentioning repentance at all is that it can give false assurance to those who are only mentally concurring with the gospel without a willing heart. Basically just giving lip service.
  16. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from DennisD in Re: "Where do we draw the line for Independent Fundamental Baptist?"   
    If you want to know that take a look at the doctrinal statement you need to agree to in order to be approved for that section. http://www.onlinebap...m/doctrine.html You and I both know you don't agree with it though.




    Then we would at some point have ruckmanites complaining that they are "KJVO". Be honest now. Why would you care about the "accuracy" of a forum title? The title does not effect you one way or another. You also are not "confused" about the purpose of the forums having been here when they were created. Nor would anyone else be likely to be confused after viewing the doctrinal statement. As far as simply "ignoring" large numbers of threads/posts with erroneous content you and I both know if this is done long term and nothing is done to amend the situation then sooner or later the character of the board changes. Just like a church. If someone is teaching something in a church that most of the members disagree with but they allow him to continue and don't argue with him about it sooner or later his position on the issue will become much more prevalent or even the dominate one as he gains converts or as his teaching attracts those with similar views to the church. The character of the church changes. That is essentially doctrinal surrender. If a curch or a forum does stand up for what they believe then they have to fight which isn't edifying or particularly enjoyable however necessary at times. Churches are destroyed that way and boards are destroyed that way as people eventually tend either to capitulate or tire of fighting and go somewhere else. All one has to do is visit numerous other baptist boards(some of which started out as not that bad) to see what happens when people are allowed to continue as they will more or less unchecked. It certainly is not edifying, that much is for sure.



    Actually it has worked quite well, if it didn't it simply wouldn't be used and you would never have started this thread. I seem to recall when that section was first formed you opposed it and stated you had no interest in joining such a "exclusive" group anyway. :wink
  17. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from rancher824 in Where do we draw the line for IFB?   
    The "unknown" in this case was added for clarity in our english language. Try to read the passage with the word "unknown" left out and see if it can make logical sense that way. It doesn't.





    This is a common passage used to attack the TR and your correct that the second part was not included in early editions of the TR. However it was found in some earlier english bibles, the later editions of beza's text and some of the greek texts as well, though not in the majority. It is inaccurate to say that the translators went with it because of the Alexandrian text line.




    This one I don't really get your point. You do realize that "corn" in the KJV is used in the old english sense that just means grain don't you? It definitely does not mean "maize" or corn in the cob like what we would call corn these days. Generally in the bible it means wheat.

    The OT passage without the italics would not be clear in english. "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out" might make sense in hebrew but does not make sense in english. "the corn" was added for clarity in english which is no doubt what paul did when quoting the verse in greek.
  18. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from 1Timothy115 in Re: "Where do we draw the line for Independent Fundamental Baptist?"   
    Because the whole reason the "IFB" forums were created was so that there would be a place for generally like minded believers to talk about things when they didn't feel like arguing with people that they are never going to see eye to eye with anyway. Sometimes you might want to ask a question or talk about something and don't really care to hear and argue with the Calvinist perspective, the Ruckmanite perspective, or the "almost any version goes" perspective. You will find people with all of those perspectives that say they are IFB, but they most certainly do not tend to be very like minded. It has been my observation on this forum and others if people hold the same views on those three issues/perspectives then the chances of serious arguments are massively reduced across the spectrum. Partially because those issues are pretty divisive in and of themselves, and partially because each of those views is a bellwether of a sort in that they tend to have a certain "set" of beliefs that go along with them more often than not.

    As far as the name of the section I and probably others could care less what it is called. Call it the "IFB forums", the "Some semblance of unity forums" or "The KJVO, but non-ruckmanite & non-calvinist forums", or even the "The forums which annoy Annie".

    Doesn't matter to me.
  19. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from Brother Rick in Where do we draw the line for IFB?   
    That is an area where I suspect we would all agree. Not only is it not a "necessary" qualification going to the "greek" is a frequently abused practice. If done carefully and properly it is no problem, indeed it can be an asset, but quite frequently it isn't done that way at all. Rather the greek word is misapplied or misunderstood in a passage and the preacher tells the congregation that "in the greek" the word "literally means" something totally different than what the real meaning of the passage is. Without thinking about it some preachers come across as engaging in bible correcting from the pulpit. When that type of preacher "goes to the greek" it tends to get them in trouble by making them think they know or see something "new" that they really don't.
  20. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from Brother Rick in Should I Stay or leave?   
    It doesn't look like the type of church I would attend if I had better options. The question is are there better options...

    As far as the specific points you raise, I am not a big fan of an electric guitar in church but that isn't because I think it is inherently sinful, it is more because I disprove of the type of music and manner in which they are usually played. As you point out they are not "generally" associated with Godly music.

    As to the separation issue if that is the feeling your getting your probably correct, however with that said in and of itself there is nothing wrong with preaching/warning against legalism, which is adding works to salvation.

    As far as point number three I do not share your view so can be of little help. It would not bother me if everything else was in order but then again I don't believe "authority" to preach comes from anyone but God.

    As far as to the overall question of should you stay or go that is a very difficult question to answer for someone else, and online without ever having attended the church. I have visited some churches I would not want to be a member of even though I agreed with them doctrinally simply because a very strong and evident spirit of pride was there. On the other hand I have visited some churches I with a much better spirit that I still would not be a member of for doctrinal reasons.


    If your not firmly entrenched in the church then checking around to see if there are better options is not a bad idea, even so we should be careful not to expect to much. Some people seem to expect virtual perfection and seem to switch churches every couple years or less.
  21. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from heartstrings in Should I Stay or leave?   
    It doesn't look like the type of church I would attend if I had better options. The question is are there better options...

    As far as the specific points you raise, I am not a big fan of an electric guitar in church but that isn't because I think it is inherently sinful, it is more because I disprove of the type of music and manner in which they are usually played. As you point out they are not "generally" associated with Godly music.

    As to the separation issue if that is the feeling your getting your probably correct, however with that said in and of itself there is nothing wrong with preaching/warning against legalism, which is adding works to salvation.

    As far as point number three I do not share your view so can be of little help. It would not bother me if everything else was in order but then again I don't believe "authority" to preach comes from anyone but God.

    As far as to the overall question of should you stay or go that is a very difficult question to answer for someone else, and online without ever having attended the church. I have visited some churches I would not want to be a member of even though I agreed with them doctrinally simply because a very strong and evident spirit of pride was there. On the other hand I have visited some churches I with a much better spirit that I still would not be a member of for doctrinal reasons.


    If your not firmly entrenched in the church then checking around to see if there are better options is not a bad idea, even so we should be careful not to expect to much. Some people seem to expect virtual perfection and seem to switch churches every couple years or less.
  22. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from HappyChristian in Where do we draw the line for IFB?   
    That is an area where I suspect we would all agree. Not only is it not a "necessary" qualification going to the "greek" is a frequently abused practice. If done carefully and properly it is no problem, indeed it can be an asset, but quite frequently it isn't done that way at all. Rather the greek word is misapplied or misunderstood in a passage and the preacher tells the congregation that "in the greek" the word "literally means" something totally different than what the real meaning of the passage is. Without thinking about it some preachers come across as engaging in bible correcting from the pulpit. When that type of preacher "goes to the greek" it tends to get them in trouble by making them think they know or see something "new" that they really don't.
  23. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from swathdiver in Where do we draw the line for IFB?   
    That is an area where I suspect we would all agree. Not only is it not a "necessary" qualification going to the "greek" is a frequently abused practice. If done carefully and properly it is no problem, indeed it can be an asset, but quite frequently it isn't done that way at all. Rather the greek word is misapplied or misunderstood in a passage and the preacher tells the congregation that "in the greek" the word "literally means" something totally different than what the real meaning of the passage is. Without thinking about it some preachers come across as engaging in bible correcting from the pulpit. When that type of preacher "goes to the greek" it tends to get them in trouble by making them think they know or see something "new" that they really don't.
  24. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from Salyan in Should I Stay or leave?   
    It doesn't look like the type of church I would attend if I had better options. The question is are there better options...

    As far as the specific points you raise, I am not a big fan of an electric guitar in church but that isn't because I think it is inherently sinful, it is more because I disprove of the type of music and manner in which they are usually played. As you point out they are not "generally" associated with Godly music.

    As to the separation issue if that is the feeling your getting your probably correct, however with that said in and of itself there is nothing wrong with preaching/warning against legalism, which is adding works to salvation.

    As far as point number three I do not share your view so can be of little help. It would not bother me if everything else was in order but then again I don't believe "authority" to preach comes from anyone but God.

    As far as to the overall question of should you stay or go that is a very difficult question to answer for someone else, and online without ever having attended the church. I have visited some churches I would not want to be a member of even though I agreed with them doctrinally simply because a very strong and evident spirit of pride was there. On the other hand I have visited some churches I with a much better spirit that I still would not be a member of for doctrinal reasons.


    If your not firmly entrenched in the church then checking around to see if there are better options is not a bad idea, even so we should be careful not to expect to much. Some people seem to expect virtual perfection and seem to switch churches every couple years or less.
  25. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from swathdiver in Mixed Marriages?   
    That presentation is flawed. If both the Matthew and Luke genealogies were of Joseph then, since Christ was not Josephs literal son, there would be no evidence for Christ being the literal son of David as he was biblically required to be. The genealogies of Matthew are those of Joseph and establish Christs legal right to to be the king of Israel, since Josephs line was legally the royal line and Christ was his adopted son. One of Josephs ancestors(jechonias) had a curse on him though which said no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of Israel which is no doubt why Christ did not physically come through the royal line. The genealogies in Luke however are those of Mary and establish Christ as the literal son of David as the Messiah was required to be.
×
×
  • Create New...