Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Steve Schwenke

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Steve Schwenke

  1. I guess I had not noticed, but I did report a feed that was Southern Baptist. It does not make sense to have an auto-feed that promotes the Cooperative Program and Southern Baptists. I think Br. Cloud is a far better candidate for auto-feeds, and I also think he gives us more substance than Paul Chappel. Just my opinion though...
  2. Hebrews 12:1-2 is the key...if people follow the Lord, and keep their eyes on Him, then the hard times are not so bad... In CHrist
  3. There is no difference between an Authorized KJV and a KJV, other than perhaps the Americanization of certain British spellings. The NKJV is a completely new translation, based on the same Greek text as the KJV, but still has some errors in it. Here is a brief list of changes in the NKJV: II Timothy 2:15 Romans 1:18, 25 II Cor. 2:17 Acts 4:27, 30 Titus 3:10, I Timothy 6:5, 10, 20 I Cor. 1:18, 22 They also consistently replace the KJV word "HELL" with either "the grave" (in the OT) or "Hades" (in the NT). There are many other changes, but these are some of the "big ones." In Christ,
  4. Laura, thank you so much for asking the questions, and looking up these verses! And thank you for being open and honest in your search for the truth!!! If I can be of more help, please let me know - just send me a PM or something. In Christ,
  5. Laura, again, I am trying to be argumentative, so please do not interpret my responses as being such. Footnotes might be "additional information," but the question is whether or not those footnotes are SCRIPTURE. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, but FOOTNOTES are not SCRIPTURE. Can you see the difference, and how the NIV has made a mess out of Luke 4:4? They took the most important part of the verse out of the text of Scripture and put it in the footnote. So what are they implying? 1. That the phrase "but by every word of God" is NOT Scripture 2. That the Christian is not to live by "bread alone" but we are not actually sure what we are to live by 3. They were kind enough to give you the "additional information" but they have already decided that the "additional information" is NOT SCRIPTURE. 4. So where does that leave you? Is it SCRIPTURE or is it NOT Scripture. If it is NOT Scripture, then the footnote is irrelevant. If it IS Scripture, then why is it not in the text???
  6. Luke 4:4 - they left out the most important part of the verse!!! Does that not concern you? If we don't live by bread alone, then by what means do we live??? The NIV does not tell you! As to the footnote, everyone knows (or should know) that the footnotes are yours to take or leave. Who decides then if it is actually scripture? The editors obviously did NOT think it was Scripture, otherwise they would have included it in the text. They put it in the footnote so that YOU can have the "option" to take it as Scripture or NOT...who decides???
  7. Laura, I think you missed the point. I anticipated and acknowledged your conclusions before you gave it. However, you can show a JW the NIV, and there is nothing there to prove to them that Jesus Christ and God are one and the same. You have no leg to stand on when you talk with them. But when you show them that same verse out of a KJV, they can't change the subject or leave quick enough...they have no answer, because in the KJV it is clear that the "God" in the passage is none other than Jesus Christ. Again, I have NEVER heard any JW refute this verse. They can get around the NIV because it does not specifically state "GOD." So we are not talking about how YOU read it. We are talking about the text itself. If you show a JW the NIV, and then tell them what you think it means, they simply respond by saying, "That is just your interpretation." But they can't do that with the KJV, because the text clearly says "GOD" and it is clearly reference to "JESUS CHRIST." The KJV is superior in every sense of the word. Further, I have ample evidence from the Greek that the KJV is right, and that all the versions that change that verse are not only wrong, but are wrong based upon the deceitful workings of men who simply did not like the verse. Should we then overlook that, and accept the new versions, even though they have no solid support for their renderings? In Christ
  8. I think we all know what the word "Christian" means, John. I am not convinced that it was the early "Christians" who decided to call themselves by that name. I believe it was their detractors who labeled them with this, and they did not mean it as a compliment, but rather as an attack, much like the other "Christians" called us "Baptist" out of derision and hatred.
  9. Laura, NIV says "He appeared in the flesh..." KJV says "God was manifest in the flesh..." It is a significant change, and the KJV has it right. If you do the homework behind the translation, the verse was consistently translated in line with the KJV up until the days of Westcott and Hort. They invented a problem, and insisted that it said "he" despite all claims from all previous commentators who had studied the manuscripts. Now, you might say that the context makes it apparent that the "he" in the NIV refers to Jesus Christ, and I won't argue with you on that. The problem is that the KJV does not say "Jesus Christ" was manifest in the flesh, but that GOD was manifest in the flesh, making Jesus Christ equal with God. I have had many conversations with the JW's over the years, and they can generally weasel their way out of many passages in the gospel of John (John 10:30 for instance), but I have NEVER heard any JW give any reasonable explanation for the KJV rendering of I Timothy 3:16. They cannot refute it. So, I will take the KJV over the NIV any day of the week because it consistently promotes the deity of Christ, and in this passage makes the case so clearly that those who believe Jesus Christ is NOT JEHOVAH cannot answer this verse. I hope you understand what I am attempting to communicate here....again, not argumentatively, just trying to help.... In Christ,
  10. Am I a Christian? Yes, and I am not ashamed of that label, and use it frequently when witnessing. At the same time, it was our ENEMIES who gave us the name "Baptist" as a derogatory term, just as the term "Christian" was a derogatory term to the early followers of Christ. I associate myself, and gladly take the name "Baptist" because history shows that it was the Baptists who most closely adhered to the Bible and Bible Doctrine. Yes, today, as we move closer and closer to the return of our Lord Jesus Christ, there is much apostacy in the Baptist ranks...but there are still many who remain faithful and true to the word of God. I might occasionally find a "Bible" church that is very sound on there doctrine, but not on their practice (i.e. allowing rock music, and generally unseparated, etc.) I might occasionally find a "Bible" church that is straight all the way across the board - KJV, separation But these are by far the exceptions. Everywhere I have lived, the ones who are closest to the truth are the independent Baptists. If we were to identify the local churches across the country that are closest to the truth in doctrine AND practice, the overwhelming majority of those churches would be Baptist churches, and a few scattered "Bible" churches and maybe even a few "non-denominational" churches mixed in. That is why I (gladly) continue using that name (among other reasons.) So it IS important to know where we came from, and understanding our history, and why we are what we are. It does not mean that ALL IFB churches are right....but that are much closer than your average unseparated, non-KJV non-denominational church or "Bible" church is. I would rather put up with some of the nonsense of the IFB's than the leaven of false doctrine from the others. Laura, as far as the KJV, I think there is plenty on here about it, and it should be enough to convince you that it IS GOd's perfect word without error. If you have not noticed any "discrepancies" it is because you have not looked very hard, or have glossed over the major discrepancies, and justified them with the corrupt Greek NT. A few major discrepancies are as follows: The last 12 verses of Mark, John 8:1-12. I Timothy 3:16, I John 5:7, Luke 4:4, Acts 8:37, and many others that deal directly with the deity of Christ and salvation. Food for thought...not wanting to debate you on it, just letting you know there is much more to this than you allow. Either God keeps his promises, or He is a liar. The promises given extend to every single word for all generations. Ps. 12:6-7, Prov. 30:5-6, Matt. 24:35, II Tim. 3:16 (ALL Scripture IS...present tense...). In Christ,
  11. I don't believe it is correct to say that Baptist "founded" America - that is a stretch. I believe it is more accurate to say that the Baptists had an extremely strong influence during the formative days of America, and played an important role during the Revolutionary Era.
  12. Already, maybe one of you techie people can help me out here.... My PC will not quote a post when I select the "Quote" option. It won't even "copy and paste" .... Do I need to change some settings on my PC or something???
  13. I just preached on the subject of Hell on Aug. 25th. I try to preach one full sermon on Hell every year. Of course, I also reference it throughout my regular preaching and teaching. It is a reality that all of us need to be conscious of.
  14. You have come on pretty strong, but you know, there are a lot of arguments made on this thread that you have completely ignored, and instead simply lumped everything you don't like into the "guilt by association" basket. Then to top that off, you ASSUME that anyone who makes these arguments against your position are filled with pride. There is far too much information out there that conclusively demonstrates that rock music in any form is not only harmful physically, psychologically, and emotionally, but more importantly spiritually for me to take any argument that says that "music" is "amoral" and merely a "personal preference." The reason why so many Christians balk at this subject and throw up their hands in abject confusion regarding what is right and what is wrong is very simple: THEY REFUSE TO STUDY THE SUBJECT. They merely pretend they have studied, and throw out their pet verse on that appears to favor their side, and then claim "victory" by labeling any dissenter as "legalistic" or "Pharasaical." Any music that will be pleasing to the Lord will be contrary to the world, the flesh, and the devil. It will be suitable to the character of God, which demands holiness. The very idea that a Holy, righteous, sinless God would somehow take pleasure in music that is by its very nature rebellious, sinful, and carnal is absurd. Too many people stop their study of music in Psalm 150, and then carry this idea to illogical extremes, but fail to take into account the demands of God's character. They fail to consider that any music offered to God as a sacrifice (Heb. 13:15!) must meet the requirements of God's holiness. That is, there should not be any admixture of the leaven of SELF, FLESH, or the WORLD in it. Good day to ya, mate!
  15. Don't know of an author. The entire question posted in the OP is completely irrelevant. The implication seems to be from your opponent that since nobody quotes Mark 16:9 to defend a change from Saturday worship to Sunday worship that therefore the last 12 verses of Mark are not important and can therefore be removed from the text. What a stupid argument. Are we now dependent upon a "published work" to determine the validity of the text???? "I trow not!" The real question is DID GOD INSPIRE AND PRESERVE the last 12 verses of Mark. John Burgon answered this conclusively in the 1800's. Out of 620 manuscripts that contain this passage (i.e. Mark 16), only TWO of them do not have the last 12 verses, and one of them has a gap big enough to fit between what would be Mark 16:8 in our Bible and Luke 1:1. Of course, those two manuscripts that delete this passage are none other than the notoriously corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (Vaticanus leaving the gap to indicate that there is at least some question regarding the authenticity of the passage.) Therefore, my conclusion is that this entire thread is irrelevant and meaningless. But since we are here.... vs. 10-14 show us the unbelief of the disciples, for which Jesus Christ rebuked them vs. 15 - the Great Commission vs. 16 - shows that baptism is NOT part of salvation - very important verse that I use regularly in that debate vs. 17-18 - the signs for the Jewish believers, used throughout the book of Acts vs. 19 - the ascension of Christ vs. 20 - the obedience of the disciples Oh, yes, I would definitely say that this passage is an important passage, regardless of whether or not somebody published any type of book or article using ONE verse to defend ONE doctrine. What an absurd argument to make in defense of removing the entire passage!
  16. Not sure what Fanny Crosby has to do with this...the songs we sing written by her today all point to the Saviour. I agree with you on "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" but that song is only popular in the NORTH, not in the South so much. It was written by a Universalist who was not even saved. And yes - too many IFB's are too busy buiding there own little Kingdoms that they really are not training and sending out young men into the ministry as they should be. Pastoral Dictatorship forbids anyone to leave unless the Pastor "gives them permission." And yes - too many IFB's get TOO involved in politics and "culture" that they forgot the basic core principles of the great commission: 1. Personal Soul-winning 2. Personal Discipleship 3. The Supremacy of PREACHING 4. The Instrument of the Local Church to carry out the Great Commission - not cultural transformation.
  17. Good article on Hegel. That is exactly how we got into this mess with all the new Bible versions!
  18. There is a difference between rebellion and holding people accountable. When man is ruler, he can make up laws as he goes, and there is no way to hold him accountable for unjust acts. When the American Colonies declared their independence from England, it was not over any trumped up charges or trivial matters. The bottom line was that King George had violated written British laws, and refused to give the colonists a fair hearing of their greivances. They had no other choice but to "secede from the union." That is why most REAL historians refer to that war as "The War for Independence" and NOT "the Revolutionary War." They were not revolting, they did not seek to destroy England. They wanted the same rights that all other English citizens enjoyed. So they "left" England to start their own country. When they established the United States Constitution, the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and all subsequent laws are subject to it. There is not one US Government official that is higher than the Constitution (at least theoretically!) - including the President or the Supreme Court Justices. Therefore, it is the duty of each American Citizen to hold their elected officials accountable to the Law. We have a guide to go by - if only we would do it. It is absolutely right and appropriate to denounce sin in any elected office. It is absolutely right to throw them out of office if they don't do right. At the same time, it is unnecessary to rail against them in an obnoxious manner.
  19. Here is the problem with accepting the new CCM music, in my opinion. What is the source? How do the music leaders and pastors come across these songs? Well, the answer is pretty obvious. 1. They are listening to CCM 2. They are buying the CCM sheet music, music books, etc, and reviewing them for "new songs" 3. Maybe a combination of both. And to me, that is a dangerous proposition. It is one thing to buy the old Stamps-Baxter song books with the "newer" gospel songs that have become "standards" like as I alluded to earlier (i.e. Gaither, Dottie Rambo, even John W. Peterson and Alfred B. Smith.) These song books have the old standard hymns with some of these "newer songs." And the songs I am referring to here as written have good lyrics and appropriate musical style. When I go to the local Christian bookstore and look through their music books, I have little use for anything "modern" or contemporary. Once I see who produced and wrote it - I discard it. I want no association with the CCM crowd whatsoever. Their doctrine, practice, method, and philosophy are all wrong. They have bought into the New Age Versions which bring along a New Age mentality - whether or not they are aware of it. If they do accidentally happen to write a good song, time will carry that song forward to be loved and cherished by saints all over the world....and I can live with that. But I am not ready to go looking for something "new" when we already have more songs from the old days than we know what to do with. The typical hymnal has over 500 hymns. How many of those do we actually sing? Why can't we learn more of those? True - some of them are not fit to sing.....but we could learn more of THOSE, and we would be better for it. (Actually - this is what we do - we try to learn several "new" hymns every year from our Hymnbook - and the people love it!) Plus, when we add in the other song books - like the Stamps-Baxter Heavenly Highway Hymns - we add how many more "oldies but goodies?" Then we add in stuff by Garlock and Hamilton....etc. etc. etc. There is simply too much GOOD music available for us today for us to give ANYTHING by any CCM artist even 5 seconds of consideration. Acts 17:21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)
  20. Huh! I have been singing that song since I was a kid....never in my life had I even imagined an RCC procession! The imagery of the Christian warfare is as plain as day. I checked Osbeck's "101 Hymn stories, and here is what I gathered. The author of the song was an Anglican. He wrote the song hastily one night as the children from his school were to walk to a neighboring village for a joint outing with that village's school. He wanted them to be able to sing as they walked (not marched!), so he came up with the words to this song the night before their outing. The original tune was a variation from Hayden. The current tune was composed about 6 years after he wrote the words to the song. The song's author was completely surprised by the popularity of the song... So it was obviously not written for any grand procession or anything like that. It is simply a song to remind us that we are Christian soldiers and we follow the command of our Saviour Jesus Christ, just as a soldier in those days was assigned to a company, and each company had its own banner to identify themselves from each other. Anyway, that's how I see it.
  21. John, you have raised a good point about the consistency in our critique of music. I understand exactly what you are saying, that there seems to be a double standard in how we use an argument against a modern song that, if applied evenly, would disqualify what is now a standard hymn. Here is my take on that issue: It takes a long time to see the fruit born of a seed. We can very easily look back through the corridors of time and see what songs have been a tremedous blessing and help to God's people, despite the author's weaknesses/faults, etc. For instance, we can easily point out that Fanny Crosby wrote secular tunes, and dismiss all of her hymnody. However, here is where the fruit is borne out. She wrote literally 1,000's of hymns, yet how many of them do we actually have in our hymnbooks today, and out of that small selection, how many do we actually sing on any kind of a regular basis? Maybe 15? 20? I would say 20 would be the very, very most. So the overall ratio of Fanny Crosby's songs that we actually sing vs. the overall number of songs she wrote is a very, very small percentage. So let me make the appropriate application. Bill and Gloria Gaither have written (x) number of songs (I have no idea how many they have written - I just know they have written a large number of songs.) Out of all the songs they have written, I can only think of a very small handful of songs that are anywhere near appropriate for church specials (at least IMO - and I know some probably would not sing ANYTHING by the Gaithers....more power to you! REMEMBER...this is just an illustration!) My point is this....there could very well indeed be some modern songs written by CCM artists that actually have good words. The music could even be cleaned up to be suitable for a conservatively minded Baptist Church. The problem is ASSOCIATION. By singing those songs in our churches, we are by default ENDORSING the current "ministry" of people that we would otherwise condemn on many fronts - doctrine, practice, separation, methods, etc., etc., etc. While many people might be blessed by the song because they have no idea who wrote it, or even who the authors are, let's not kid ourselves into thinking that there would not be a sizable percentage of people in the church who DO know the songs from the CCM artists. THose are the people that will see the inconsistency in our stated/preached position on music, and the use of the very same music that we condemn from the pulpits. If in fact these modern songs are any good, they will stand the test of time, just like that very small percentage of Fanny Crosby's songs did and Bill Gaither's songs have. Down here in the South, Southern Gospel music is such a problem that I avoid Gaither's songs because I don't want anyone to think that I condone his music or lifestyle or "ministry" or anything like that. "Abstain from all APPEARANCE of evil." Anyway, maybe that helps someone out there understand why some of us have such a problem with the Hamiltons including modern CCM songs in their songbooks. I mean, that video someone posted - the performers do everything that Garlock and Hamilton told us NOT to do....so why would they use their music??? (FWIW - I really could not tell the difference MUSICALLY from there performance and a typical rock band performance....same lighting, same makeup, same musical structure, same chord progression, same repetitive riffs, etc.....) The bottom line is this.....we are in Laodicean times....God's people are more interested in pleasing their FLESH than pleasing God....and will use any excuse to do so! PS - Ian, I disagree with you...the words and music of Onward Christian Soldiers is vastly superior to the posted video. At least the music makes you think of marching! In Christ,
  22. John, I agree with you about the principle of the autonomy of the local church. I don't agree with you when it comes to noticing who wrote the song or music. Just as I would never trust a book written by a neo-fundamentalist or a neo-evangelical to be completely accurate on theology, so I would never trust a song written by a CCM artist to be worth anything. And Melodys is right - when we sing the songs written by CCM artists in our church, we are condoning their music - whether we wish to or not. Just because you personally don't pay attention to the author of the song does not mean that others don't. Most people do - and associate what we sing in church as the "standard" for what is acceptable outside of church. We must be extremely careful about the message we send by what we put our "stamp of approval" on in the church setting. IN Christ,
  23. I don't have the Majesty Hymnal, but I find this quite surprising. I checked out the Majesty Music website but didn't see any CD's from these CCM artists, but there is no way for me to verify that they included these songs in their hymnal. But I certainly understand what you are saying, and I agree with you 100%. I believe the operative Scripture verse is this one: 1 Thessalonians 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
  24. John, I hear you on that. I know of a handful (literally!) of churches that are sound but not called "Baptist." They are, however, "Baptistic" in practice and doctrine. But by and large, the Independent Baptist churches across America are the ones who are still holding to the truth in doctrine and practice. As the end times approach, we will see fewer and fewer churches holding the line on sound doctrine, separation, preaching, etc. Am 8:11 ΒΆ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: Am 8:12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it. Also, what Jerry said is absolutely true. And I think that is why so many people today are dropping their "denominational" names....they forgot where they came from. We must remember that it is our ENEMIES who named us....many of the other denominations named themselves after their leaders or after some outstanding issue they "championed" (Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Church of England, etc.) Our name was meant as an insult.
  25. Maybe things are different over there in England, but denominational names are important over here. I have never come across a non-denominational church that was anywhere close on doctrine or practice. I have come across a very small handful of what are called "Bible" churches (i.e. Rossville Bible Church) that are extremely sound on all points. The only recognizable difference between those very few churhces and us is the name "Baptist" missing from the church name. So I am not sure I agree with you here. Though many other non-denominational churches CLAIM to preach Christ, the truth is that they don't. THeir gospel is so watered down that it is ineffective. The huge mega-churches here in Amarillo (and elsewhere!) are filled with lost people, and even sodomites feel comfortable attending. Something is wrong somewhere, even though they claim to believe and claim to "preach" the "gospel." The others who actually do preach a clean gospel are so screwed up in doctrine and practice that I could never recommend, agree, or claim any kind of unity with them. Their method and approach is wrong, the emphasis in their message is wrong, and their doctrine is wrong. Even here on this forum, we have wide ranges of doctrinal positions. But because we all agree on what the TRUE gospel is, and our final authority (the KJV) and our PRACTICAL lives are similar, I think we can claim some sort of unity......
  • Create New...