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 rancher824 in Gadhafi's Burial Delayed for Investigation   
    If you are referring to my comment about the "international criminal court" being a illegitimate concept then feel free to explain why you think otherwise. BTW I think the UN is a illegitimate concept too. Other than Gods law nations are the highest form of government I recognize as legitimate. Nations can make/break treaties with one another, but the idea that there is any kind of legitimacy to some overarching "International law" , to which all nations and people are subject, is foolish.
  2. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from swathdiver in I Desire a Stone?   
    Don't underestimate the power of google.

    http://www.biblecust...nt-orientalisms



    The bible is a divine book preserved by God for all peoples and while I don't doubt there are some things where it is helpful to understand the cultural context the bible is not as difficult to understand as some would make it out to be. The "western mind" can grasp it just fine.




    I agree. Taking a look at the book online it is easy to see the author made many serious errors on matters where an author of his time should have known better. It is apparent he is not not a careful or trustworthy source. Looks to me like a book written to catch preachers rather than a serious and and trustworthy source of truth. Such is unfortunately typical much of the literature and authors in that class. Careful intellectualism and going in depth is fine, no pretense of intellectualism is fine, but phony intellectualism and telling made up "facts" that sound good to the ill informed is not fine.
  3. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from rancher824 in Exposing Children to other religious systems   
    It would depend on the child. It also might be helpful if it was studied with the parent rather than leaving the child to themselves. I will say I think many Christians do their children a disservice by overprotecting them from teachings that are part of this world. Things they will be confronted with eventually, like it or not. Things like evolution are a case in point. I have seen some children that were so protected from it they scarcely knew what it was beyond knowing it was "bad". As a result when actually confronted with it they hadn't a clue with how to deal with it beyond quoting a few things they heard from some professional "creationist". That doesn't work very well for obvious reasons. Same thing with everything from teaching bible doctrines in depth to teaching about other religions. They will have to deal with things like that eventually, and if the child is able the earlier they acquire a good understanding of complex or difficult topics the more mature and better grounded they can become. The less a child is taught the more ignorant he/she is likely to be and as a broad generality the less knowledge a person has the easier it is to make it look as if they are wrong on a subject even if they are actually right in basic premise. That said wisdom is the principle thing. Knowledge is no guarantee of wisdom and ignorance does not necessarily mean a lack of wisdom. However knowledge and wisdom together are a far greater force to be reckoned with than either is alone, so why not go for both?
  4. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from JerryNumbers in Unity of Believers   
    I am too, at times anyway, matter of fact I am equally happy to do that with people that I am 99% sure are unsaved as well. That does not mean I am under any allusion of being unified with either group though, it merely means I am trying to spread the truth of scripture where I can if I think there might be someone with an ear to hear. There are also times when I know someone has heard the truth many times and rejected it. If I think they are in willful sin and they have no intention of listening or changing what unity is there? If God says sin hides his face from believers and if they regard iniquity in their hearts he will not hear them then what unity can there be till they get those things right?

    This scripture is key to the concept of biblical unity:

    "1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."

    Logically the reverse is also true. If one or both individuals are not walking in the light then there is not and cannot be biblical fellowship or unity.
  5. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from blossom in Pastoral Qualifications   
    Loosed in the context can mean either divorced or widowed, but your reading a meaning into the scriptures that isn't there. Verses 25-40 of 1st Corinthians 7 should be taken as a whole, you can't take one verse out and fairly interpret it in a manner that would contradict the rest of the passage and multiple other scriptures as well. The part your quoting, verse 27 and the first part of 28, are building upon verse 26 where Paul is saying there are benefits to being unmarried. He is not saying it is not sin for a divorced person to remarry while their spouse is still alive(see verse 39), he is saying it is not a sin for a unmarried(but not divorced) individual to marry. In other words celibacy is not required of believers.

    Until the past 50 years or it wasn't even seriously questioned that divorce and remarriage was wrong and a disqualification to pastor. With the prevalence of divorce these days though something "had" to be done to bring the bible in line with modern "realities" I suppose. IFB's might not yet have reached the point of arguing like the Anglicans or some other groups if homosexual pastors are permissible or not, but we have some things that we also "wink" at for cultural reasons while unchangeable God does not.
  6. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from blossom in Just came in :) again to announce   
    I am sorry to hear that, I think it is a bad move,particularly the move to more doctrinally weak churches. There have been times when I have been rather disgusted with a large portion of IFB's as well but I didn't leave IFB's or IFB churches because for all our collective flaws I don't think there is any other "christian" group with more biblical doctrine. We just don't always practice it. I would not advise dumping IFB's because it is sort of a case of "to whom shall we go?" Be careful that you don't get out of the frying pan and into the fire out of discouragement... If you love the Lord and you chose to dump IFB's and go to the kind of churches your talking about then I don't think you will be happy for long. Sure you might enjoy the lack of conflict for a while but if you follow after the Lord and stay in the word you will eventually realize that those churches have rejected Gods word in the name peace and getting along. That realization when you come to it will make you just as uncomfortable as the conflicts IFB's have. If that happens we will probably see you again, and your more than welcome anytime. :icon_mrgreen:
  7. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from PastorMatt in Just came in :) again to announce   
    I am sorry to hear that, I think it is a bad move,particularly the move to more doctrinally weak churches. There have been times when I have been rather disgusted with a large portion of IFB's as well but I didn't leave IFB's or IFB churches because for all our collective flaws I don't think there is any other "christian" group with more biblical doctrine. We just don't always practice it. I would not advise dumping IFB's because it is sort of a case of "to whom shall we go?" Be careful that you don't get out of the frying pan and into the fire out of discouragement... If you love the Lord and you chose to dump IFB's and go to the kind of churches your talking about then I don't think you will be happy for long. Sure you might enjoy the lack of conflict for a while but if you follow after the Lord and stay in the word you will eventually realize that those churches have rejected Gods word in the name peace and getting along. That realization when you come to it will make you just as uncomfortable as the conflicts IFB's have. If that happens we will probably see you again, and your more than welcome anytime. :icon_mrgreen:
  8. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from JerryNumbers in What does the Bible teach about the children?   
    I think your missing the meaning of that passage. It is saying that if the believing spouse did not sanctify the unbelieving spouse God basically would not recognize the marriage as valid and the children born to such a marriage would be as illegitimate in God's sight as if born out of wedlock, not that the children are automatically saved or unsaved based on the status of the parents.




    I think your opinion is contrary to the revealed character of God. Why would God send someone to suffer in hell for eternity if they were not capable of CHOOSING to reject the truth? I suppose he could do that and be "just" but justice is not the only aspect of his character. The Lord is also gracious, full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy. God does not want some people to go to hell, he very much does NOT want anyone to go to hell. The only reason anyone does is because they are stiff necked and willfully reject the truth of God. I don't think anyone will be in hell that could honestly say God didn't give them an opportunity to come to the light.

    "Genesis 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

    "Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

    Also there are verses like this:

    "Ezekiel 16:20-21 Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?"

    These people that were sacrificing their children unto idols were undoubtedly unbelievers yet God calls their children HIS children...
  9. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from Brother Rick in What does the Bible teach about the children?   
    Psalms 22 is primarily a prophetic passage of Christ and the verse you quote is pulled right out of the middle of prophecy. Much of the language is figurative, for example "I am a worm, and no man" does not mean a literal worm or maggot, it is expressive of a lowly despised position. Likewise the "bulls" "dogs" and so forth are metaphoric of strong and evil men. Also I am sure we can agree Christ, being God, was not exactly a normal baby any more than John the baptist being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mothers womb was normal.

    A little context:

    "Psalm 22:6-19 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly. Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help. Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round. They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me."

    I think it is totally without scriptural basis to think that infants normally have a understanding of good and evil and can believe or reject God. As to if they go to hell, John 3:16-19 makes it pretty clear condemnation comes because of rejection of the light.
  10. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from HappyChristian in What does the Bible teach about the children?   
    Psalms 22 is primarily a prophetic passage of Christ and the verse you quote is pulled right out of the middle of prophecy. Much of the language is figurative, for example "I am a worm, and no man" does not mean a literal worm or maggot, it is expressive of a lowly despised position. Likewise the "bulls" "dogs" and so forth are metaphoric of strong and evil men. Also I am sure we can agree Christ, being God, was not exactly a normal baby any more than John the baptist being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mothers womb was normal.

    A little context:

    "Psalm 22:6-19 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly. Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help. Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round. They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me."

    I think it is totally without scriptural basis to think that infants normally have a understanding of good and evil and can believe or reject God. As to if they go to hell, John 3:16-19 makes it pretty clear condemnation comes because of rejection of the light.
  11. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from Wilchbla in What does the Bible teach about the children?   
    Psalms 22 is primarily a prophetic passage of Christ and the verse you quote is pulled right out of the middle of prophecy. Much of the language is figurative, for example "I am a worm, and no man" does not mean a literal worm or maggot, it is expressive of a lowly despised position. Likewise the "bulls" "dogs" and so forth are metaphoric of strong and evil men. Also I am sure we can agree Christ, being God, was not exactly a normal baby any more than John the baptist being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mothers womb was normal.

    A little context:

    "Psalm 22:6-19 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly. Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help. Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round. They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me."

    I think it is totally without scriptural basis to think that infants normally have a understanding of good and evil and can believe or reject God. As to if they go to hell, John 3:16-19 makes it pretty clear condemnation comes because of rejection of the light.
  12. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from LindaR in What does the Bible teach about the children?   
    Psalms 22 is primarily a prophetic passage of Christ and the verse you quote is pulled right out of the middle of prophecy. Much of the language is figurative, for example "I am a worm, and no man" does not mean a literal worm or maggot, it is expressive of a lowly despised position. Likewise the "bulls" "dogs" and so forth are metaphoric of strong and evil men. Also I am sure we can agree Christ, being God, was not exactly a normal baby any more than John the baptist being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mothers womb was normal.

    A little context:

    "Psalm 22:6-19 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly. Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help. Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round. They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me."

    I think it is totally without scriptural basis to think that infants normally have a understanding of good and evil and can believe or reject God. As to if they go to hell, John 3:16-19 makes it pretty clear condemnation comes because of rejection of the light.
  13. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from JerryNumbers in What does the Bible teach about the children?   
    Psalms 22 is primarily a prophetic passage of Christ and the verse you quote is pulled right out of the middle of prophecy. Much of the language is figurative, for example "I am a worm, and no man" does not mean a literal worm or maggot, it is expressive of a lowly despised position. Likewise the "bulls" "dogs" and so forth are metaphoric of strong and evil men. Also I am sure we can agree Christ, being God, was not exactly a normal baby any more than John the baptist being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mothers womb was normal.

    A little context:

    "Psalm 22:6-19 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly. Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help. Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round. They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me."

    I think it is totally without scriptural basis to think that infants normally have a understanding of good and evil and can believe or reject God. As to if they go to hell, John 3:16-19 makes it pretty clear condemnation comes because of rejection of the light.
  14. Thanks
    Seth Doty reacted to RSS Robot in The Wise Man's Folly   
    September 21, 2011 (Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

    The following is by Buddy Smith and is from Heads Up! September 9, 2011, smiletex@bighpond.net.au --

    "For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.  For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.  And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father. Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods." I Kings 11:4-8
     
    How could the wisest king in history go so terribly wrong? He began his reign so well, and ended it so poorly. Where did he go wrong?


    View the full article
  15. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from HappyChristian in Curious situation--Pastors?   
    On the other hand it is not fair for an individual to put the pastor/pastors wife in the position of knowing they did something they should have confessed to their parents if they are not willing to do so. I would think that it would not be to much of a stretch to apply the second part of 1 Timothy 5:22 to a situation like this: "neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure."

    As you pointed out earlier a pastor is not the priest of the congregation. If someone has sin in their life and they are not willing to get it right and confess it to every party that has a right to know, then neither should they confess it to the pastor/pastors wife. Pastors should not let themselves be dragged into a situation where they become partakers of other peoples sins. Knowledge of a situation brings a certain amount of responsibility.

    If I was a pastor I would not want to know a young lady in the church had "repented" of kissing some guy she was not married to if she was not willing to admit that to her parents. I would not want to know a man in the church was struggling with lust if he wanted to keep that secret from his wife. You get the point. If you let someone tell you something they should also tell someone else but are not willing to then you are allowing yourself to become an "accessory to a sin" so to speak. Pastors have enough to deal with without having a lot of burdens of that sort on their conscience.
  16. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from nucreature in Is this a new attitude or..?   
    Oh that attitude is everywhere alright, and I think it comes from two closely related issues. There is a lot of doctrinal disagreement even among IFB's and even more disagreement on how to live a godly Christian life. That right there is a recipe for friction since there is little unity of heart and mind.

    Also as a result of this reality a considerable number of IFB's tend to be rather withdrawn even(or perhaps more so) in church(guilty) because it seems like they get hurt almost every time they let down their guard a little. Since they are not very trusting they tend to be rather private and have some difficulty forming emotional attachments or sharing personal things even with people they think they pretty much agree with. Such people are exceedingly difficult to get to know or draw out very far in conversation, are often hard to get to participate in anything, and may seem rather cold & stiff.(again probably guilty, one of my faults)

    Sometimes it is sort of like the old joke about two Quaker friends discussing their church. Says Quaker number one, Alas, I am sure of no one in our church but thee and me. Says Quaker number two after a brief pause... I also am sure of no one in our church but thee and me and I am none to sure of thee...


    Is that the way things should be? No, but to get greater unity there is really only two options. One, everyone must become more Christlike and as our views/opinions/actions become closer to his we sort of bump in to one another and realize we are pretty unified in him. Obviously that is ideal but it is also easier said than done and rarely happens on a large scale. Option number two is lowering everything to the lowest common denominator for the sake of unity. That is what compromise/ecumenicalism is all about and while it "works" after a fashion I think most here would agree it isn't worth the cost since in the end almost everything of value ends up being sacrificed for unity as little by little the "common denominator" sinks lower and lower.

    Slightly pessimistic post? Perhaps, but perhaps just realistic. If your focus is on people you will be disappointed. Something we all "know" but don't always remember to practice. Biblical unity requires everyone being inline with God, and while that is great it is also something we have very little control over. All we can control is ourselves and even that isn't easy.
  17. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from swathdiver in Is this a new attitude or..?   
    Oh that attitude is everywhere alright, and I think it comes from two closely related issues. There is a lot of doctrinal disagreement even among IFB's and even more disagreement on how to live a godly Christian life. That right there is a recipe for friction since there is little unity of heart and mind.

    Also as a result of this reality a considerable number of IFB's tend to be rather withdrawn even(or perhaps more so) in church(guilty) because it seems like they get hurt almost every time they let down their guard a little. Since they are not very trusting they tend to be rather private and have some difficulty forming emotional attachments or sharing personal things even with people they think they pretty much agree with. Such people are exceedingly difficult to get to know or draw out very far in conversation, are often hard to get to participate in anything, and may seem rather cold & stiff.(again probably guilty, one of my faults)

    Sometimes it is sort of like the old joke about two Quaker friends discussing their church. Says Quaker number one, Alas, I am sure of no one in our church but thee and me. Says Quaker number two after a brief pause... I also am sure of no one in our church but thee and me and I am none to sure of thee...


    Is that the way things should be? No, but to get greater unity there is really only two options. One, everyone must become more Christlike and as our views/opinions/actions become closer to his we sort of bump in to one another and realize we are pretty unified in him. Obviously that is ideal but it is also easier said than done and rarely happens on a large scale. Option number two is lowering everything to the lowest common denominator for the sake of unity. That is what compromise/ecumenicalism is all about and while it "works" after a fashion I think most here would agree it isn't worth the cost since in the end almost everything of value ends up being sacrificed for unity as little by little the "common denominator" sinks lower and lower.

    Slightly pessimistic post? Perhaps, but perhaps just realistic. If your focus is on people you will be disappointed. Something we all "know" but don't always remember to practice. Biblical unity requires everyone being inline with God, and while that is great it is also something we have very little control over. All we can control is ourselves and even that isn't easy.
  18. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from JerryNumbers in Curious situation--Pastors?   
    On the other hand it is not fair for an individual to put the pastor/pastors wife in the position of knowing they did something they should have confessed to their parents if they are not willing to do so. I would think that it would not be to much of a stretch to apply the second part of 1 Timothy 5:22 to a situation like this: "neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure."

    As you pointed out earlier a pastor is not the priest of the congregation. If someone has sin in their life and they are not willing to get it right and confess it to every party that has a right to know, then neither should they confess it to the pastor/pastors wife. Pastors should not let themselves be dragged into a situation where they become partakers of other peoples sins. Knowledge of a situation brings a certain amount of responsibility.

    If I was a pastor I would not want to know a young lady in the church had "repented" of kissing some guy she was not married to if she was not willing to admit that to her parents. I would not want to know a man in the church was struggling with lust if he wanted to keep that secret from his wife. You get the point. If you let someone tell you something they should also tell someone else but are not willing to then you are allowing yourself to become an "accessory to a sin" so to speak. Pastors have enough to deal with without having a lot of burdens of that sort on their conscience.
  19. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from Kitagrl in Curious situation--Pastors?   
    On the other hand it is not fair for an individual to put the pastor/pastors wife in the position of knowing they did something they should have confessed to their parents if they are not willing to do so. I would think that it would not be to much of a stretch to apply the second part of 1 Timothy 5:22 to a situation like this: "neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure."

    As you pointed out earlier a pastor is not the priest of the congregation. If someone has sin in their life and they are not willing to get it right and confess it to every party that has a right to know, then neither should they confess it to the pastor/pastors wife. Pastors should not let themselves be dragged into a situation where they become partakers of other peoples sins. Knowledge of a situation brings a certain amount of responsibility.

    If I was a pastor I would not want to know a young lady in the church had "repented" of kissing some guy she was not married to if she was not willing to admit that to her parents. I would not want to know a man in the church was struggling with lust if he wanted to keep that secret from his wife. You get the point. If you let someone tell you something they should also tell someone else but are not willing to then you are allowing yourself to become an "accessory to a sin" so to speak. Pastors have enough to deal with without having a lot of burdens of that sort on their conscience.
  20. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from blossom in Church Splits and Such.   
    I am sure many can sympathize with those feelings, there are times when it would be a whole lot easier just to say to yourself that the vast majority of even those that call themselves IFB's are nothing but a bunch of carnal powerless fakers that you neither need nor desire to have any sort of contact with. If someone feels that way(been there) I guess whether you throw up your hands at the whole mess or grit your teeth and stay faithful in spite of your disgust/disappointment all depends on your reasons for being part of a church in the first place.

    If it is for fellowship you may one day find most fellowship is very shallow and you don't really have many(if any) genuine and like minded friends...
    If it is to learn the bible you may one day get to the point where you already know almost everything you hear taught, possibly better than the teachers do...
    If it is for encouragement you will probably have times where overall you are more discouraged by the church than encouraged...

    On the other hand if your part of a church because God has directed believers to do so that will always be true.

    If your part of a church to warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be an encouragement to others, and as much as lieth within you set a Christlike example then you will always have ample opportunity for that as well.

    If you go for yourself sooner or later you will get to the point where that is not a very compelling reason, if you go for the glory of God and to help his people then you will always have a good reason no matter what you have to deal with over the passage of time.

    Sort of like Moses and the children of Israel. Did Moses ever benefit from his association with them or did they help him at all? No, they gave him nothing but trouble, headaches and heartache. They were always living in unbelief, wanting to return to egypt, threatening to stone him, constantly complaining about one thing or another, worshiping idols and on and on... Moses would have had a much easier time of it if he had left them in egypt. Why didn't he just leave them since they were no help to him? Because he loved God and they were Gods people and his people. God was his help/encouragement not the children of Israel. He was there for Gods glory and for them not they for him.

    Hopefully things aren't always that bad in a NT bible based church, but they can be and sometimes are.
  21. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from John81 in A hot issue on the campaign trail: theology   
    I don't argue that, the time of the judges was an ugly time where much that was either outright wrong or less than ideal went on. I wouldn't exactly be thrilled with a man being in a spiritual leadership position when that man was first married to a unbeliever and then after her death was in the habit of hiring harlots(Sampson). Nor would I accept a man as a spiritual leader who had many many wives and actually set up an idol to worship(Gideon). Nor would I accept the leadership of a man that sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering(Jephthah). Point being, though the judges did have faith and were used of God for specific purposes by and large they were not particularly good examples of Gods perfect will. Even if I were to agree with your position that Deborah was deliberately taking leadership(and I do not see that in scripture) that would still be a long way from justifying that practice as a biblically acceptable/normal model. You don't see woman in any type of leadership positions over men throughout the vast majority of the bible, indeed, this is about the only potentially positive example that can be given. It isn't something you see endorsed in either the OT or the NT. You see a handful of prophetesses that people sought guidance from, including Deborah, but that is about it. It is something that pretty much clashes head on with the NT picture of a Godly woman.
  22. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from Salyan in Church Splits and Such.   
    I am sure many can sympathize with those feelings, there are times when it would be a whole lot easier just to say to yourself that the vast majority of even those that call themselves IFB's are nothing but a bunch of carnal powerless fakers that you neither need nor desire to have any sort of contact with. If someone feels that way(been there) I guess whether you throw up your hands at the whole mess or grit your teeth and stay faithful in spite of your disgust/disappointment all depends on your reasons for being part of a church in the first place.

    If it is for fellowship you may one day find most fellowship is very shallow and you don't really have many(if any) genuine and like minded friends...
    If it is to learn the bible you may one day get to the point where you already know almost everything you hear taught, possibly better than the teachers do...
    If it is for encouragement you will probably have times where overall you are more discouraged by the church than encouraged...

    On the other hand if your part of a church because God has directed believers to do so that will always be true.

    If your part of a church to warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be an encouragement to others, and as much as lieth within you set a Christlike example then you will always have ample opportunity for that as well.

    If you go for yourself sooner or later you will get to the point where that is not a very compelling reason, if you go for the glory of God and to help his people then you will always have a good reason no matter what you have to deal with over the passage of time.

    Sort of like Moses and the children of Israel. Did Moses ever benefit from his association with them or did they help him at all? No, they gave him nothing but trouble, headaches and heartache. They were always living in unbelief, wanting to return to egypt, threatening to stone him, constantly complaining about one thing or another, worshiping idols and on and on... Moses would have had a much easier time of it if he had left them in egypt. Why didn't he just leave them since they were no help to him? Because he loved God and they were Gods people and his people. God was his help/encouragement not the children of Israel. He was there for Gods glory and for them not they for him.

    Hopefully things aren't always that bad in a NT bible based church, but they can be and sometimes are.
  23. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from Salyan in It's 1775, Are You A Loyalist Or A Patriot?   
    Wasn't the argument over whether or not the country had divided in two the reason for the war between the states in the first place? Seems the south would have needed to win the war in order to validate their position that they were no longer part of the United States. It is a basic fact that if a "war for independence" is lost chances are it will be known as a rebellion, insurrection, etc. and if it is won it will be known as a war for independence, freedom, etc. That is life as a rebellion/insurrection and a war for independence are different sides of the same coin. If a person or group insists that a lost war was "really" a war for independence or that a war that was won by the other side was "really" a rebellion, insurrection, etc. all they are doing is expressing where their sympathies are at. There is a excellent reason why the American civil war is the most common term for the conflict that broke out in the 1860's. It split America right down the middle geographically and ideologically. Some from the south fought for the Northern armies and some Northerners fought for the Southern armies. Murders by lynch mob or other means of those suspected of holding locally unpopular sympathies were common in both the North and South. No other war inflamed our nation to such a degree and no other war in our nations history is still so bitterly argued about to this day, 150 years later. No doubt to this day some on this very board feel strongly enough for the causes of the south that they would willingly take up arms for them again if the conditions were such that it were possible. Likewise some would willingly take up arms for the principles of the North were it necessary. Very divisive war, so much so people even argue today about what to call it because even what you call it is usually perceived as spinning things in favor of one side or another. If your a "good southerner" you usually prefer something like "the war of northern aggression" or "Abe Lincolns war" or "the war for southern independence" and if you hold views more in line with the north you tend to call it the "civil war" or "the war between the states." If you are someone who has views more in line with the north and have become so sick and tired of hearing southern generals spoken of in glowing terms and of the "righteous cause" of the south that you no longer care about tact you call it "the war of the great rebellion" or "the war of southern insurrection". Of course unless you wish to be punched in the nose or waylaid and pulled into a some dark alley by some good southerner you better be north of the mason dixon line or safely behind your computer when you use the last two appellations. :biggrin:
  24. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from DennisD in Rewards in heaven?   
    Yes, no doubt about it, rewards in heaven are tied to what you did with what you were given on earth. The parables of Christ and the writings of the apostles make that pretty clear.





    That is a difficult question because there is not going to be a cut and dried one size fits all best way to deal with every person in this area. It requires a certain amount of guidance from the Holy Spirit. Differing approaches might be best depending on the individuals personality, the root cause they are falling away etc. For example is the person falling away due to being dragged down by bad friends/associations, exposure to bad doctrine, depression, discouragement, carelessness, or something else? Do they tend to be a hardheaded thick skinned individual or do they tend to be more emotionally sensitive? All those things are going to make a difference and the best way to deal with one individuals situation might not be the best way to deal with another.

    If a person was once faithful in church attendance and then fails to show up for months then obviously something has changed somewhere. They obviously know that faithfulness is important or they would never have been faithful in the first place. If their response when approached about it is something along the lines of "I'm saved, I'm going to heaven, that's all I need." then most likely that is a defensive statement intended to deflect attention from the actual problem. Most likely if they were once faithful and now aren't they don't even really believe that statement themselves. Now you could go into a doctrinal discourse on exactly why their statement is flawed and so forth, but since a statement of that sort is most likely a defensive reaction/deflection anyway it isn't always best to address such statements head on. Many times it might be better to let such statements slide without argument while one does a little careful and tactful questioning to uncover the real issue. If the real root cause is uncovered you can go from there, but if you go after a diversion you probably will not get very far.
  25. Thanks
    Seth Doty got a reaction from JerryNumbers in It's 1775, Are You A Loyalist Or A Patriot?   
    Wasn't the argument over whether or not the country had divided in two the reason for the war between the states in the first place? Seems the south would have needed to win the war in order to validate their position that they were no longer part of the United States. It is a basic fact that if a "war for independence" is lost chances are it will be known as a rebellion, insurrection, etc. and if it is won it will be known as a war for independence, freedom, etc. That is life as a rebellion/insurrection and a war for independence are different sides of the same coin. If a person or group insists that a lost war was "really" a war for independence or that a war that was won by the other side was "really" a rebellion, insurrection, etc. all they are doing is expressing where their sympathies are at. There is a excellent reason why the American civil war is the most common term for the conflict that broke out in the 1860's. It split America right down the middle geographically and ideologically. Some from the south fought for the Northern armies and some Northerners fought for the Southern armies. Murders by lynch mob or other means of those suspected of holding locally unpopular sympathies were common in both the North and South. No other war inflamed our nation to such a degree and no other war in our nations history is still so bitterly argued about to this day, 150 years later. No doubt to this day some on this very board feel strongly enough for the causes of the south that they would willingly take up arms for them again if the conditions were such that it were possible. Likewise some would willingly take up arms for the principles of the North were it necessary. Very divisive war, so much so people even argue today about what to call it because even what you call it is usually perceived as spinning things in favor of one side or another. If your a "good southerner" you usually prefer something like "the war of northern aggression" or "Abe Lincolns war" or "the war for southern independence" and if you hold views more in line with the north you tend to call it the "civil war" or "the war between the states." If you are someone who has views more in line with the north and have become so sick and tired of hearing southern generals spoken of in glowing terms and of the "righteous cause" of the south that you no longer care about tact you call it "the war of the great rebellion" or "the war of southern insurrection". Of course unless you wish to be punched in the nose or waylaid and pulled into a some dark alley by some good southerner you better be north of the mason dixon line or safely behind your computer when you use the last two appellations. :biggrin:
×
×
  • Create New...