Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Steve Schwenke

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Steve Schwenke last won the day on July 17 2016

Steve Schwenke had the most liked content!

About Steve Schwenke

  • Birthday 08/05/1971

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    Amarillo, TX

Recent Profile Visitors

7,672 profile views

Steve Schwenke's Achievements

  1. 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. 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. I see the same problems, Mike. I believe one of the reasons we have this problem is because the "big shots" have glamorized "the ministry" to the point where young men don't want to go out into some relatively unknown place, put their heads down, and work. The ministry IS work. They want to be another "big shot." Regarding your questions on "calling." I believe God does give a certain specific call in most cases. You would have to be crazy to want to be in the ministry for any other reason. A person simply cannot be effective in teh ministry without a definite calling. There are too many reasons to not want to do it - at least to do the job properly and scripturally. I believe this is the reason there are so many hirelings today. They have no calling. Without a definite call from God to the ministry, it is nothing more than a vocation. They have no sense of purpose and no passion for the Lord. I believe there is also a definite call to the place God puts you. I have no reason to be in the Panhandle of Texas. I am from Minnesota. But when the Lord sent me here, I immediately fell in love with this region, and these people. Why? It makes no sense. All I know is that God called me here, sent me here, and this is where I KNOW God wants me to be. I can't explain why. I just know it. What else could this be but a definite call from teh Lord for me to minister here? Unfortunately, because the calling of God to the ministry, and to a location, is quite subjective, it is easy to counterfeit. ANYONE can make the claim. But to those who are truly called, the hirelings are easy to spot. The question I always ask myself is this, "Would that man stay here if he half of his church walked out, along with his paycheck?" Good questions. Things I have pondered deeply for a long time! In Christ,
  4. Mike Great question. I think part of the answer lies in the decline of the USA in spiritual matters. Our Independent Baptist churches are shrinking, and the KJV IFB churches are even smaller. Furthermore, what we perceived to be "large" churches and a "big movement" within our IFB churches, in the greater context of all of Christianity, and all of the USA, our movement was minor - at best. What I am getting at is this - our Nation is falling, in part because we did not do a very good job. On top of that, we got complacent in our mission. Our large metro areas are really suffering spiritually, and are in dire need of real Bible Believing churches. Here are my thoughts on this issue. I would support the idea of Home Missions, but I would be very careful in how I would implement the support. 1. Is there a definite need in the area? We recently had a missionary come off the field, and decided that God had called him to start a church in Amarillo, TX. I have a hard time believing it. In Amarillo, population 200,000, we already have 8 Bible Believing IFB churches - why exactly do we need another one, when there are small towns all across the Panhandle of Texas with NO Bible Believing churches??? 2. In keeping with the Biblical model of missions, I would expect that a Home Missionary would go to a major population center, build a church, and send out others to the less populated regions in his "Judea." In my paradigm, it is my belief that our 8 churches in the Amarillo area should be training men to go out into these small towns and get some churches started. Just as i would expect a foreign missionary to go to a population center, start a church train the nationals, then send them out to their own people, so I would expect a home missionary to do the same thing. 3. My support would be limited. I would put a definite time limit on any financial support. We would expect the church to grow to the point where they would be able to adequately support him. I know first hand how difficult it is to work a job and pastor a church and raise a family. I don't have a problem supporting home missions TEMPORARILY to give the guy an opportunity to at least get the church "off the ground." 4. I would really grill the person to make sure of his calling. Here is why. There are too many phonies out there begging for money. It makes me sick. I get fliers, letters, and phone calls all the time for all kinds of things. I figure, if God wants them to have their building, or whatever else they are begging for, God will do it without me. It is THEIR church. Just as George Mueller prayed and God supplied, and many other missionaries and preachers prayed and God supplied, so God can supply the needs of these beggars! Whatever happened to us living by faith, trusting God to supply our needs, and being content with what God gives us??? I have the same problem you have Mike. I have seen how God has taken care of our little church here, and the struggles we face, and then get flabbergasted at the audacity of some of these charlatans. I get even more incredulous that they get support! Unbelievable! While we labor away unnoticed, without begging, and we are happy to be in the Lord's service without the limelight, attention, accolades, or anything else! Little is much when God is in it! In Christ,
  5. Thank you GP for providing the Scriptures to reveal your line of thinking. I disagree with your conclusions.
  6. 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.
  7. 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!
  8. 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...)
  9. 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!
  10. 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!!!
  11. 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!
  12. 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.
  13. 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,
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  • Create New...