Jump to content
Online Baptist

Steve Schwenke

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

    825
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

Steve Schwenke last won the day on July 17 2016

Steve Schwenke had the most liked content!

About Steve Schwenke

  • Rank
    Bible Believing Baptist Preacher
  • Birthday 08/05/1971

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Amarillo, TX

Recent Profile Visitors

5,987 profile views
  1. Steve Schwenke

    1Cor 7: Divorce and Remarriage

    Pastor Markle, Thank you for taking time to respond to my question. I do not wish to belabor the point on this question. I will simply say, with all due respect, that I disagree with you on this point, based on my earlier question. If the Lord Himself grants that under the circumstances of adultery (Matthew 19) or desertion (I Cor. 7) divorce is acceptable, though not the original intent, nor the ideal situation, that therefore remarriage would be acceptable (though again, not ideal.) The original reason given for marriage all the way back in the garden of Eden was that "it is not good for man to be alone." I believe this statement is still operable. It would be cruel indeed to condemn a man or woman to live a single life because of someone else's sin! Sure, SOME could do it, but Jesus Christ Himself and Paul both admit that these individuals are RARE. It should not be forced upon them! God created us to be together, and to compliment each other and help each other through the Scriptural institution of marriage. One person's sin should not deny the innocent party's ability to enjoy what God ordained. That's how I see it. Again, thank you, and may the Lord's blessings be upon your family and ministry!
  2. Steve Schwenke

    1Cor 7: Divorce and Remarriage

    Pastor Markle, If our Lord Jesus Christ grants that it is permissible (though not desirable) to divorce in the case of unrepentant adultery, then how could it possibly be a sin to remarry under that circumstance? This conclusion does not seem to follow. A divorce is the END of a marriage! And if God Himself recognizes adultery as a legitimate end of marriage, then how could remarrying someone be constituted as adultery? The act of adultery is in fact a dis-annulment of the marriage. The marriage relationship itself has been broken and violated. The hope would be that the offending party would repent, and that the marriage would resume. While the marriage may be still legally binding, the moral, ethical, and physical aspects of the marriage cease at the point of adultery. The fact is that the marriage has already ended in all practical aspects although not legally. Again, we would hope for restitution, repentance, and restoration. Now, if Jesus Christ said that under the circumstance of adultery that divorce was permissible, then a remarriage by the innocent party would then ALSO be permissible. It seems to me that the matter is clearly stated in the gospel narratives on the subject. As I highly respect you, I look forward to your response.
  3. Steve Schwenke

    GenevanPreacher, do you?

    Thank you GP for providing the Scriptures to reveal your line of thinking. I disagree with your conclusions.
  4. Steve Schwenke

    GenevanPreacher, do you?

    Wow. After reading through all of this, that's about all I can say. WOW! Ok, look, GenevaPreacher, you have berated us up and down for holding to this "concocted" story, yet you have failed - miserably to persuade us otherwise. You have given us assertions and claims, but have not really addressed the substance of the issue, as your antagonists have, namely DaveW and Pastor Markle. Yet you continue with your assertions and claims as if no substantial arguments have been made. I know what it is like to have limited time, having to work overtime, etc. I get it. But after all of your bellowing about this subject, you owe us an explanation and dissertation on the subject. For as much noise as you have made, and with no substantial arguments made from Scripture, despite repeated calls to do so, you have failed miserably to provide any sound exposition of the subject. The arguments against you are overwhelming. Pastor Markle did an excellent job (as always) of carefully expounding the Ezekiel passage. I would encourage you to do likewise! Absolutely. I believe the first part of the chapter is a "dual reference" applicable to both the physical prince of Tyrus, and the devil. The second part is solely the devil, in my view.
  5. Steve Schwenke

    GenevanPreacher, do you?

    Geneva - please provide Scripture to support your claims. There was a list of 4 questions that were asked for clarification, which you answered, but you gave no Scripture for them. Perhaps if you build your thesis from those questions, and provide Scriptural support so we can understand where you are coming from, it might make things easier. Thanks!
  6. Steve Schwenke

    GenevanPreacher, do you?

    I would really like it if you could provide Scripture to support each point. You lecture us for just following the teaching of man, but then when asked to clarify what you believe, you provide no Scripture to support it. Further, each one of your points flies in the face of very clear Scripture (except for point one...)
  7. Steve Schwenke

    God's Soul???

    Inasmuch as we are made in the image of God, and in His likeness, and inasmuch as the three components of our being are, spirit, soul, and body, I would say the answer to the question is yes......I think. I have taught for many years the following: God the Father = the Soul of God God the Son = the body of God God the Spirit = the spirit of God The last two are without question. Jesus Christ is referred to several times in the NT as "the image of God," "God manifest in teh flesh." God the Father functions as our soul would function. Perhaps it is more correlation, I don't know. There is so many things about God that our finite brains cannot comprehend!
  8. Steve Schwenke

    GenevanPreacher, do you?

    GP - your theory makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Genesis 1 is clear - everything God created was VERY GOOD. Does this include Satan? Oh, I think I am going to be sick!!!
  9. Steve Schwenke

    The Gap theory GARBAGE

    Swathdiver, I understand where you are coming from regarding keeping a pure church. One of the most important things to guard is our doctrine. I get that. I am a pastor, so I REALLY get that! My point here is that I believe there is a difference between heresy, error, and non-essential differences. Some people teach it as DOCTRINE that a woman must always wear a dress. To me that is not doctrine, that is preference, and certainly nothing to divide over. Immodesty is something that should be warned against, the older women should teach the younger women what modesty is, with emphasis on "the inner man" (I Peter 3). But to call it "heresy" to NOT teach that a woman should always wear a dress is a bit too far. The same point applies to the gap. There are plenty of good, sound churches who hold to the Gap, have good clean music, have modest women, and all of the above. We as human beings are never going to fully agree on every little point, and the Bible does not expect that. In fact, the Bible anticipates that we have minor differences. But the Bible also expects us to set aside our minor differences, and come together into the unity of Christ. This was the whole idea behind teh Fundamentalist movement in the early 1900's. Rally around the fundamentals to fight against modernism and liberalism. And here I think we can be gracious enough with others on this Gap issue, if they are sound in most other places. I am thinking of people like Oliver Greene and the like. Good, sound, Bible believing people who have much truth and who can help us a great deal. If you can't look past something like the Gap, and focus on what is good, in my opinion, we are not much better than any other cult. We can only listen to THESE preachers, and read THESE books, but anything with what I consider an ERROR cannot be read!!! Yep, that has "cult" written all over it!
  10. Steve Schwenke

    The Gap theory GARBAGE

    Jim, you are correct on the names. Lucifer means "light bearer" Satan means "adversary", and is called the prince of darkness, even though he is transformed into an angel of light.
  11. Steve Schwenke

    The Gap theory GARBAGE

    Mike and Dave i understand your objections. However, those who hold to the gap - at least in the IFB world - do not deny a literal 6-day re-creation as listed in Genesis 3. This comes down to a matter of interpretation. They believe every word literally. To say otherwise is disingenuous. What you are saying is that if they don't agree with you, then they are not Biblical literalists. This is not true. If it were true, then we would be able to find major doctrinal problems across the board in their teachings. If they were not Biblical literalists, then they not only take liberties in Genesis 1, they would also take liberties throughout the Bible. They don't. There is no slippery slope here, so far as I can see. Blessings! In Christ,
  12. Steve Schwenke

    The Gap theory GARBAGE

    Do you know any pastor who has every single doctrine and preference 100% correct? I don't. NOBODY has EVERYTHING correct. We are all still sinners, and we are all prone to error. Oliver Greene taught the gap. John R. Rice endorsed the NASB. John R. Rice's reference Bible was not a pure KJV. This is not to disparage either of those men, because they both did great good in their ministries! But they were wrong on THOSE points. So let's call a person out on their errors, and be edified by them where they are right. There are many people who teach the gap who have tremendous insight into Scripture on many points, and we can all be edified by them. Why toss them out over the gap? To me that is total nonsense. Now if it is the case as Mike made, then sure. Or if they get off into "weirdology" fine. But if the core of their teaching and preaching is in the main sound, good, and edifying, then I believe it is a bit reactionary to toss ALL pro-gappers out. So I think there is a distinction to be made between essential doctrine, and non-essential doctrine. That is, doctrine that we cannot budge on at all, then other doctrines where we can respect each other where we don't agree. IMO, since the Gap does not affect major doctrine, I would classify it as non-essential. Do as you please! I see no reason to divide over the issue.
  13. Steve Schwenke

    The Gap theory GARBAGE

    Mike, I am not going to debate you on the gap. The point I was trying to make was this. All of your objections have been noted. But do the people who are teaching the gap teaching the things you are objecting to? If they are not teaching the things you are objecting to, then the doctrine has NOT been affected. I do not know any IFB's who believe the Gap to teach anything about evolution, or deny the 6 literal days of creation as listed in Genesis 1. They simply move it as a re-creation. the time element before the Gap is completely irrelevant to the pro-gappers. In short, your objections are based on things that are NOT being taught by the pro-gappers - at least not by the IFB version of it. They still believe in the distinction between Israel, the church, the OT, the NT, the sufficiency of the Cross, the Blood of Christ, Heaven, Hell, New Heaven, New Earth, etc. etc. etc.
  14. Steve Schwenke

    The Gap theory GARBAGE

    Not going to say much on this topic. Scofield and Larkin (both baptists) taught the gap as well. Here is the thing. OK, so somebody teaches the Gap. I guess I am not seeing it as a "problem" if you are for or against it. I don't see how it affects the doctrine on anything else. I don't see how it affects the OT Law, or how it affects the NT church. It is one of those things that is debatable (to some at least!). If you don't agree with it, fine. To me, it is something worth discussing and debating, but it is certainly not something worth dividing over. It has little to no effect on our core doctrines. That's all I will say.
  15. Steve Schwenke

    Church Mempership

    Brother, it is not my intention to be mean or anything like that. Those of us who have been on this board for any length of time know that you have a major hobby horse. I understand that it is not a hobby horse to you. However, in the greater context of things, I see no reason for you to not keep a lid on it, and get along with what you have available. I know, I have been in that position myself, where I had to swallow my pride, and attend a church that I did not agree with on some major issues - meaning they were major issues to ME, and my position was not very well received by the Pastor or leadership. What did I do? I attended that church because it was the best church in the area (45 minutes away), and I told the PASTOR where I stood, and also promised him that I was not there to stir up trouble, but to receive instruction. I did it to be obedient to my Saviour who DIED FOR THE CHURCH. "Only by PRIDE cometh contention...." Sometimes we need a good dose of humility to please God. The end of the story is that when I left that church, I left on GOOD TERMS with the Pastor, who THANKED me for not causing him trouble. AND - I maintained my own convictions on those areas where we disagreed. I have a tremendous amount of respect for that Pastor and their ministry, although we are not in agreement on many issues. IT CAN BE DONE. IT SHOULD BE DONE. There is no "excuse" clause in the New Testament Scriptures. If there is no church "good enough" to attend, then invite people over to your house and hold a Bible Study or something. BUT DO SOMETHING with other believers, or set aside time on Sundays to worship God, and try to get others involved.... Whatever you do, don't sit around and do NOTHING, and then blame it on everyone else! In Christ,
×