Jump to content

Dr James Ach

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    1,271
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from Jerry in David Cloud-Who Is This Guy, Anyways?   
    There is a difference between parts of the letter that cover behavior as a whole whether believers are in church or at home, and when the context is referring specifically to the location where the believers gather for church. If the entire letter referred to only church behavior within the assembled meetings, then men could wear a wig as soon as they walked out of the service, or separation from even believers that live ungodly would no longer apply as soon as they left the assembly.
     
    Paul shows the difference in 1 Cor 11:18 "when ye COME TOGETHER in the church"...and notice this is not stated until after his discussion on the hair and covering regarding the men and women.
     
    In 1 Cor ch 14: the church is mentioned 10 times with statements such as "yet IN THE CHURCH" (v 19) "if therefore the whole church BE COME TOGETHER" (v 23) "let him keep silence IN THE CHURCH" (v 28) "let your women keep silence IN THE CHURCHES".
     
    And in verses 34-35, Paul shows a difference between church and "home" showing the context is about a location, not toward the church as a whole in chapter 14.

    So that shows the distinction between when Paul is addressing believers as a whole, and when he is limiting his dialogue to a specific meeting event that occurs in a home or building called "church".
     
    Now when you read I Cor 11 1-15, the reference is applicable at all times and places, not just "in the church". But in 1 Cor 14, the issue is specifically stated as one of an authority issue:
     
     "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law."
     
     
    "For" means "because" and links the reason why women are not allowed to speak BECAUSE they are commanded to be under obedience.
     
    Now with 1 Timothy: 
     
    "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." (vs. 11-12).
     
    That is pretty clear that women were not permitted to have an authoritative position of speaking within the church.
  2. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from John Young in Kj Bible College   
    To answer the OP, I can't think of any college that doesn't use one for Greek or Hebrew. I did for Greek. Probably the only where you'd hear the lexicon criticized is Penascola Bible Institute (Peter Ruckman's college). He gets a lot of flack for his positions which I think is based on a misunderstanding of his "advanced revelation" label (well that, and his language LOL). His comments about advanced revelation have to be understood in light of his sense of humor (if you call it that) he does it to mess with his critics heads. But when it comes to defending the KJV, he is still the first person I go to when I need to understand a KJV issue. I just talked to them today about follow ups to James White and they gave me a pretty good website that keeps up to date with current KJV issues http://brandplucked.webs.com/ . Bro Ruckman said he's a Calvinist but is solid on the KJV
  3. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from John Young in New Will Kinney Kjv Index   
    Some of you may know Will Kinney who owns the website, brandplucked.webs.com. Will has worked tirelessly to provide articles in defense of the King James Bible, and written several worthy refutations against critics such as James White.
     
    On our website we created an index of Will Kinney's articles which will be updated regularly as Will sends us his new articles.
     
    BOOKMARK this link as it is an invaluable tool for those who wish to study the defense of the King James Bible
     
    Will Kinney KJV Index
  4. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Dorightchristians - King James Onlyism Before Peter Ruckman   
    Yes, God forbid that He would actually COMMAND that copies be made: Deut 17:18:

    " And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites"
     
    How dare God to expect kings and judges to follow laws from a COPY
  5. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from candlelight in Regeneration And Believing.   
    The ironic thing is that you claim to not want to be labeled, but always run to the defense of Calvinism/Reformed Theology anytime that it is questioned, so you can take that pious sounding "it's based on Scripture" elsewhere. You chose to identify with an Independent Baptist KJVO forum when you signed up, and I'm pretty sure your information did not say, "I'm just following the Bible". No, you CHOSE to identify with Independent Baptists, either that, or you have deceitfully wormed your way into this forum. Since you likely will not admit to the latter, then if it's the former, it's rather convenient then for you isn't it, to get to pick and choose when you want to follow a label, and when you don't to follow one when said label gets trampled on by sound Biblical and logical arguments.
     
    Furthermore, you cry about shunning labels and yet choose the screen name "COVENANTer" which identifies you with a specific system of theology.
     
    Now all of the rhetoric you just posted is all fine and dandy if that's what you REALLY believed, but we both know that it goes further than just the simple surface bumper sticker slogans you post when you need to back up, regroup, attempt to get people to agree with you on levels of theology they accept first, and then make additional attempts later (preferably after I'm visibly offline) to try the sucker-punches again. Sorry, not while I'm watching
     
    Anytime you care to answer my previous post feel free (or feel casually determined, doesn't matter to me).
  6. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from robmac68 in Don't Call This An Independent Baptist Forum   
    And this is a perfect example of Covenanter (and most Calvinist's) slight-of-hand misleading rhetoric.
     
    Why post a video on John 3:16 when you KNOW that you don't believe it?
     
    Now let me show you how the Calvinist pulls this off:
     
    1) Speak in terms that others not familiar with Calvinist doctrine or rhetoric understand, like the language in John 3:16 where there is a common sense of what "world", and "whosoever" means. See Covenanters comments> here for an example of such usage
     
    2) But once they are pressured into further clarifying their terms, you see the mystery and the deception unravel as Covenanter does> here on comment #46 in telling you what 'world" and 'whosoever' in John 3:16 REALLY means!
     
    You can also simply start at the beginning of that >thread here and see how the Calvinists attacking the OP never addressed the arguments, and were the first to be beligerant, beginning with Covenanter's condescending remarks in #9, #15 and especially #20. The Calvinist fuel then gets added to by Auburn88 on post #29 who followed me to OB from another forum so he could take everything I said and post it on the Baptist Board.  This is also a good place to start for others unfamiliar with the history and growing tension on this forum, and how some of the Calvinists even attacked the moderators here.
  7. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from Miss Daisy in Discussions & "debates" In Which I Would Like To Engage   
    I'd rather get them all out of the way to avoid side shows for those who think the Calvinist forgot something. Or it can be 1-1 with allowances made for the Calvinist to use handicaps, life lines and dial-a-Calvinist

    I'll catch up more after the week end is over. We passed out tracts today during a homo parade which went over about as well as a model duck posing at a gun range, and then before sunrise we are moving our stuff to another family member's house in Jaffa. I'm sick of Tel Aviv. When I had to walk over a rainbow colored crosswalk to get my coffee, that was it for me LOL.
  8. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from Miss Daisy in Discussions & "debates" In Which I Would Like To Engage   
    Yeah, ME TOO, just saw this thread.

    I would also like to debate every person on the forum that defends Calvinism. Me against any Calvinist, or all of you at once, doesn't matter to me.
  9. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from Standing Firm In Christ in Discussions & "debates" In Which I Would Like To Engage   
    I'd rather get them all out of the way to avoid side shows for those who think the Calvinist forgot something. Or it can be 1-1 with allowances made for the Calvinist to use handicaps, life lines and dial-a-Calvinist

    I'll catch up more after the week end is over. We passed out tracts today during a homo parade which went over about as well as a model duck posing at a gun range, and then before sunrise we are moving our stuff to another family member's house in Jaffa. I'm sick of Tel Aviv. When I had to walk over a rainbow colored crosswalk to get my coffee, that was it for me LOL.
  10. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from candlelight in Discussions & "debates" In Which I Would Like To Engage   
    I'd rather get them all out of the way to avoid side shows for those who think the Calvinist forgot something. Or it can be 1-1 with allowances made for the Calvinist to use handicaps, life lines and dial-a-Calvinist

    I'll catch up more after the week end is over. We passed out tracts today during a homo parade which went over about as well as a model duck posing at a gun range, and then before sunrise we are moving our stuff to another family member's house in Jaffa. I'm sick of Tel Aviv. When I had to walk over a rainbow colored crosswalk to get my coffee, that was it for me LOL.
  11. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from Gorship in Discussions & "debates" In Which I Would Like To Engage   
    I'd rather get them all out of the way to avoid side shows for those who think the Calvinist forgot something. Or it can be 1-1 with allowances made for the Calvinist to use handicaps, life lines and dial-a-Calvinist

    I'll catch up more after the week end is over. We passed out tracts today during a homo parade which went over about as well as a model duck posing at a gun range, and then before sunrise we are moving our stuff to another family member's house in Jaffa. I'm sick of Tel Aviv. When I had to walk over a rainbow colored crosswalk to get my coffee, that was it for me LOL.
  12. Thanks
    Dr James Ach reacted to No Nicolaitans in Regeneration And Believing.   
    Yes, even the devils "believe".  That's why I was careful to associate the "belief" that I spoke of as "faith" (see my original comment highlighted in blue in the quote below). I was of the mindset that the belief spoken of in this thread was "saving faith".
     
     
  13. Thanks
    Dr James Ach reacted to DaveW in Regeneration And Believing.   
    Yeah, the guy said exactly the same thing but STILL argued that a man can not have faith without being regenerated first.

    You keep saying it is basically irrelevant but it is not.

    The point is that if you must be regenerated before you can have faith, the salvation is by command not faith - it matters not if "the two are basically inseparable" if you move salvation from faith to command, then you change the basis of salvation.

    Regardless of your constant cry that it is essentially irrelevant, it is vitally important that your view on salvation is Biblically supportable.
    Shouting louder does not make you a winner.

    If you really believe as you have stated that regeneration is essential before belief then YOU MUST BE ABLE TO BIBLICALLY DEFEND THAT.

    I have not even asked you to do that - just supply "proof texts" that I might study for myself.

    You have not done so, but keep saying it doesn't actually matter.
    That smacks of a concession that there is no proof for an essential point of salvation.

    You will go on to say that God chooses who will be saved, and that relies ENTIRELY on the premise that God must renew a man before he can believe.

    So stop avoiding it and BIBLICALLY PROVE your position.
  14. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from Miss Daisy in Kingdom Of Antichrist ?   
    Here's a real simple OBjection: How could Jesus have gone to make a place for anyone in John 14, if the building materials (the bodies that make up the "city") were not available or even born yet? Would be quite a challenge to call the PLACE that Jesus is building a city that is made out of bodies to which He said I GO TO PREPARE (which was immediately after His ascension), and the bodies needed to make that city won't be around for another couple thousand years.
     
    Furthermore, the measurements given in Revelation are given of humans BEFORE they die (as in, a cubit would be @18 inches of a human living in a mortal body now). How does anyone know that our glorified bodies will have exactly the same measurements? In other words, John could not have been using measurements of men to describe the future measurements of men when their physical features would be entirely different once they OBtained their glorified bodies.
     
    Just because Revelation uses symbolism (and nOBody is denying that the Bible uses symbolism) does not mean that certain things are not literal, and I have raised this OBjection before where Invicta nor Covenanter nor any other Calvinist, Preterist, or RT has responded to:
     
    *Are the 7 churches in Revelation ch 1-3 7 literal churches? If the number is 'symbolic' because after all we're dealing with a symbolic book, then how many churches are there really?
    *Were there only 7 letters or was there just one letter and 7 was symbolic meaning the original manuscript was whole and complete.
     
    *Were there 7 candlestacks?
     
    *Were there 144,000 Jews sealed?
     
    *Were there 12 tribes of Israel in Rev 7?
     
    *Does 1/3 of the waters turn to wormwood in Revelation 8 or is 1/3 just symbolic?
     
    *Are there really only 7 seals or could that just be symbolic?
     
    *Does the dragon reign for 3 1/2 years or is that 3 1/2 years just symbolic? It could be 350 1/2 years right!
     
    *Does the army from the East in Revelation 9 really have 200 million members? (And by the way, does the Chinese Army right now just coincidentally  have a 200 million man army?)
     
    And one question about Revelation 9 that no Preterist or CT or RT has ever answered me on is that since the claim is Revelation was fulfilled by the Roman armies attacking Jerusalem in AD 70, show me in history where there was any army on earth with that large of a military. The entire population of the earth itself was barely that large around AD 100 let alone a single army or corrOBoration of armies. Furthermore, Rome is WEST of Jerusalem not East.
     
     
    Were there 4 beasts described in Revelation ch 4 or could it really be 400, or 4,000?
     
    Now I could just continue listing figure after figure after figure throughout Revelation where to understand what is symbolic you have to also understand somethings that are NOT. To understand Jesus knocking on a door in Revelation 3:20, you have to understand what a door is. This is basic hermeneutics 101. The Bible uses symbolism, hyperbole, metaphors, idioms, typology, but there are general and common sense rules to the proper placement and usages of those. What the Bible does NOT do is ascribe hidden meanings embedded into the texts that mean something other than the plain meaning the verse has to the ordinary ear and eye-that it what the Gnostics did and that is what allegorical interpretation does. Most symbolism is explained in the Bible. Some is not, but there are still applicable rules of interpretation that tell us that Ezekiel's wheel in the middle of a wheel does not mean the spinners on the rims of a rich man's limo. Covenant theology stretches the rules of interpretation to where anything literal is unrecognizable and can have any meaning you want it to.
  15. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from heartstrings in Regeneration And Believing.   
    The reason Calvinists had to come up with this is because it is impossible to explain the salvation of Cornelius and others like him who sought God before being saved, and in Calvinist soteriology, man is so totally depraved he does not have the ability to seek God, and therefore must be regenerated first before he can even believe. Even though the 'ordo salutis' is different in many verses, and Calvinists are all divided on just what those orders are as well- the one thing in Scripture where the order has never been backwards is that faith is required to be regenerated:
     
    * In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise" Eph 1:13
     
    There are a ton of other verses that show faith comes before, and is even commanded, before regeneration. Gal 3:2, Romans 5:18, John 5:28, 8:24, etc.. 
     
    I have addressed a popular Calvinist argument raised by James White about the dead being able to hear in "Could Lazarus Have Said 'No'" which deals with some of the arguments used by Calvinists about the abilities of dead people, and the confusion of using spiritual death and physical death when it suits their arguments.
     
    Another fancy debate tactic that they will pull if you don't pay close attention is tell you that regeneration doesn't mean salvation when they are trying to refute verses you cite about faith coming before salvation, but then switch back to the functionality of regeneration which has the effect of salvation when swimming back to their original premise. JD Hall of Reformation Montana and Pulpit and Pen tried to do this with me in a Twitter debate, and when I kept calling him out on his fallacy and forced him to stick to a defined position on regeneration, he blocked me. So before you debate a Calvinist on this make sure you nail them down on a definition of regeneration first, otherwise you will end up playing an endless game of circular reasoning with them.
     
    I'll post some more later. I'm gonna see if I can track down that Twitter "debate".
  16. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from candlelight in Origen (184-254 A.d.) - Allegorical Method Of Interpreting Scriptures   
    From Jack Moorman's, Forever Settled, pages 69-70
     
     
     
    Origen (185 - 254) He is considered by many to be the most profound mind in the history of the church. But in fact it may be said that he had a greater corrupting influence on the early church and on the Bible itself than any man. Origen was born in Alexandria, Egypt, the cradle of Gnosticism. He and Clement before him were renowned teachers in Alexandria's famous Catechetical School. This school was a center of philosophical and scientific learning as well as theology.He practiced rigorous asceticism, memorized largo portions of Scripture and wrote commentaries on much of the Bible. Millers Church History states "he sought to gather the fragments of truth scattered throughout the pagan Philosophies and unite them to Christian teachings so as to present the Gospel in a form  that would not offend but rather ensure the conversion of Jews, Gnostics and cultivated heathen." Origen said, "Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins." He did not believe in the resurrection of the body. He believed in universalism, that all including demons would eventually be saved. His theology included a kind of reincarnation of the soul..   He was given to wild allegorizing of Scripture, saying - "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as written." Though Origen says "there never was a time when the Son was not." His attempts to explain the father’s "begetting" of the Son have somewhat left this issue in doubt. In the famous dispute that arose in Alexandria between Arius and Athanasius (4th century) over the deity of Christ, Origen was called the father of Arianism.   Adam Clarke says he was the first to teach purgatory. A number of the doctrines which later found their way into Romanism have their source in this man. J. H. Newman who was made a Cardinal after he left the Church of England for the Church of Rome said, "I love the name of Origen, I will not listen to the notion that so great a soul was lost." The fact that the Catholic Bibles contain the seven additional books known is the Apocrypha may be traced to Origen's inclusion of these books in his own "doctored" Greek manuscripts. This indicates that he placed tradition and Scripture on about the same footing a prime tenant in Roman theology.   Reumann in "The Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars" says that Origen had a team of scribes whose purpose it was to "correct" the manuscripts (pp S0-56). Westcott refers to his alteration of Mark 6:3. Hills states that he altered Matthew 19:17-21 and Burgon that he altered Luke 2:14. Kilpatrick says, "The creation of new variants ceased about 200 AD because it became impossible to sell them. From the 3rd century onward, even Origen could not effectively alter the text."Origen himself, referred to the tampering of manuscripts in his day. "Nowadays, as is evident, there is a great diversity between the various manuscripts, either through the negligence of certain copyists, or the perverse audacity shown by some in correcting the text, or through the fault of those, who, playing the part of correctors, lengthen or shorten it as they please."   Hort stated regarding Origen, "His Scripture quotations to the best of our belief exhibit no clear and tangible traces of the TR." However, Edward Miller, in his exhaustive study of the Fathers, found that Origen sided with the TR 460 times and with the WH 491 times. This is a powerful proof that even in Alexandria at this early date, the distinctive readings of the Received Text were almost as common as that of the other.   Hills states - "In the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John (that is, in the area covered by P.66) out of 52 instances in which the TR stands alone, Origen agrees with it 20 times and disagrees with it 32 times. Thus to assertions that Origen knew nothing of the TR becomes difficult indeed to maintain. It is argued that these TR readings are not really Origen's, but represent alterations made by scribes who copied Origen's works to make them conform with the TR. However, a number of these distinctively TR readings in Origen also appear in P66.   Origen spent the later part of his life in Caesarea where his corruptive influence affected later generations, including Eusebius (265 - 340) and Jerome (340 - 420). Newman says, "Palestine, where Origen spent the latter half of his life has always been devoted to his memory and faithful to his teachings."Wilkinson says, 'When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries ... His corrupted manuscripts of the Scriptures were well arranged and balanced with subtlety. The last one hundred years have seen much of the so-called scholarship of European and English Christianity dominated by the subtle and powerful influence of Origen."     ******************   Page 194   By 1833 the issue was becoming clearly defined. It was Premillenarianism, that is, belief in the return of Christ before the millennium, or Liberalism; it was with regard to the Scriptures either literalism or allegorism. As Cadman says of the Evangelicals of that day:   "Their fatalism inclined many of them to Premillenarianism as a refuge from the approaching catastrophes of the present dispensation… Famous divines strengthened and adorned the wider ranks of Evangelicalism, but few such were found within the pale of the Establishment. ROBert Hall, John Foster, William Jay of Bath, and in Scotland, Thomas Chalmers, represented the vigour and fearlessness of an earlier day and maintained the excellence of Evangelical preaching."   Here was a faith in the Second Coming of Christ, at once Protestant and evangelical, which would resist any effort so to revise the Scriptures as to render them colourless, giving to them nothing more than a literary endorsement of plans of betterment, merely social or political. This faith was soon to be called upon to face a theology of an entirely different spirit. German religious thinking at that moment was taking on an aggressive attitude. Schleiermacher had captured the imagination of the age and would soon mould the theology of Oxford and Cambridge. Though he openly confessed himself a Protestant, nevertheless, like Origen of old, he sat at the feet of Clement, the old Alexandrian teacher of 190 A.D.
  17. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from MountainChristian in Regeneration And Believing.   
    What is funny is that he appealed to Dave that if he is going to argue against Reformed Doctrine (not the Bible) he should at least "try to understand it". 
     
    It never ceases to amaze me how much Calvinists claim "sola scriptura" but then accuse their opponents of misrepresentation, and then admonish them to study the creeds, confessions and commentaries of the Reformers to better understand Calvinism/Reformed Doctrine. Calvinists prove to me over and over again they are really not "Sola Scriptura". It's the same logic used by the Jehovah's Witnesses "If you want to understand the Watchtower you have to understand the Bible...but wait...the Watchtower doesn't believe that and you need to study Russel's 'Studies In the Scriptures' to know that the Watchtower really believes the Bible" It's a constant circular reasoning trap. "Calvinism IS the gospel", and the only way to really know it is to know the confessions and creeds and writings of the Reformers, if all you know is the Bible, well then you can never truly understand Calvinism because the first time you disagree with a Calvinist, they will gladly point to an article in the Confessions (whether Westminster, London, Philadelphia, Helvetic Confessions, Lambeth Articles , Dortian Canons, etc...) and accuse you of not understanding the Reformers if you don't know these documents and authors. 

    This was my SOP in debate tactics when I was a Calvinist. Ironically, every Calvinist would've "Amen'd" every word I said back then, but now I "misunderstand" it. Well just how many authors, books, confessions, creeds, catechisms, commentaries does one have to read in order to understand Calvinism? And if Calvinism is really that predictable, then why don't Calvinist themselves agree with each other? I mean, after all, if God ordains all things, and His will can never be thwarted or altered or interfered with (Psalm 78:41), and it's surely God's will that His people have unity (Eph 4:13) and be of the same mind (Phil 2:1-5), then surely Calvinists are all on the same page, right?
     
    Don't try cashing that check.
  18. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from LindaR in Origen (184-254 A.d.) - Allegorical Method Of Interpreting Scriptures   
    From Jack Moorman's, Forever Settled, pages 69-70
     
     
     
    Origen (185 - 254) He is considered by many to be the most profound mind in the history of the church. But in fact it may be said that he had a greater corrupting influence on the early church and on the Bible itself than any man. Origen was born in Alexandria, Egypt, the cradle of Gnosticism. He and Clement before him were renowned teachers in Alexandria's famous Catechetical School. This school was a center of philosophical and scientific learning as well as theology.He practiced rigorous asceticism, memorized largo portions of Scripture and wrote commentaries on much of the Bible. Millers Church History states "he sought to gather the fragments of truth scattered throughout the pagan Philosophies and unite them to Christian teachings so as to present the Gospel in a form  that would not offend but rather ensure the conversion of Jews, Gnostics and cultivated heathen." Origen said, "Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins." He did not believe in the resurrection of the body. He believed in universalism, that all including demons would eventually be saved. His theology included a kind of reincarnation of the soul..   He was given to wild allegorizing of Scripture, saying - "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as written." Though Origen says "there never was a time when the Son was not." His attempts to explain the father’s "begetting" of the Son have somewhat left this issue in doubt. In the famous dispute that arose in Alexandria between Arius and Athanasius (4th century) over the deity of Christ, Origen was called the father of Arianism.   Adam Clarke says he was the first to teach purgatory. A number of the doctrines which later found their way into Romanism have their source in this man. J. H. Newman who was made a Cardinal after he left the Church of England for the Church of Rome said, "I love the name of Origen, I will not listen to the notion that so great a soul was lost." The fact that the Catholic Bibles contain the seven additional books known is the Apocrypha may be traced to Origen's inclusion of these books in his own "doctored" Greek manuscripts. This indicates that he placed tradition and Scripture on about the same footing a prime tenant in Roman theology.   Reumann in "The Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars" says that Origen had a team of scribes whose purpose it was to "correct" the manuscripts (pp S0-56). Westcott refers to his alteration of Mark 6:3. Hills states that he altered Matthew 19:17-21 and Burgon that he altered Luke 2:14. Kilpatrick says, "The creation of new variants ceased about 200 AD because it became impossible to sell them. From the 3rd century onward, even Origen could not effectively alter the text."Origen himself, referred to the tampering of manuscripts in his day. "Nowadays, as is evident, there is a great diversity between the various manuscripts, either through the negligence of certain copyists, or the perverse audacity shown by some in correcting the text, or through the fault of those, who, playing the part of correctors, lengthen or shorten it as they please."   Hort stated regarding Origen, "His Scripture quotations to the best of our belief exhibit no clear and tangible traces of the TR." However, Edward Miller, in his exhaustive study of the Fathers, found that Origen sided with the TR 460 times and with the WH 491 times. This is a powerful proof that even in Alexandria at this early date, the distinctive readings of the Received Text were almost as common as that of the other.   Hills states - "In the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John (that is, in the area covered by P.66) out of 52 instances in which the TR stands alone, Origen agrees with it 20 times and disagrees with it 32 times. Thus to assertions that Origen knew nothing of the TR becomes difficult indeed to maintain. It is argued that these TR readings are not really Origen's, but represent alterations made by scribes who copied Origen's works to make them conform with the TR. However, a number of these distinctively TR readings in Origen also appear in P66.   Origen spent the later part of his life in Caesarea where his corruptive influence affected later generations, including Eusebius (265 - 340) and Jerome (340 - 420). Newman says, "Palestine, where Origen spent the latter half of his life has always been devoted to his memory and faithful to his teachings."Wilkinson says, 'When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries ... His corrupted manuscripts of the Scriptures were well arranged and balanced with subtlety. The last one hundred years have seen much of the so-called scholarship of European and English Christianity dominated by the subtle and powerful influence of Origen."     ******************   Page 194   By 1833 the issue was becoming clearly defined. It was Premillenarianism, that is, belief in the return of Christ before the millennium, or Liberalism; it was with regard to the Scriptures either literalism or allegorism. As Cadman says of the Evangelicals of that day:   "Their fatalism inclined many of them to Premillenarianism as a refuge from the approaching catastrophes of the present dispensation… Famous divines strengthened and adorned the wider ranks of Evangelicalism, but few such were found within the pale of the Establishment. ROBert Hall, John Foster, William Jay of Bath, and in Scotland, Thomas Chalmers, represented the vigour and fearlessness of an earlier day and maintained the excellence of Evangelical preaching."   Here was a faith in the Second Coming of Christ, at once Protestant and evangelical, which would resist any effort so to revise the Scriptures as to render them colourless, giving to them nothing more than a literary endorsement of plans of betterment, merely social or political. This faith was soon to be called upon to face a theology of an entirely different spirit. German religious thinking at that moment was taking on an aggressive attitude. Schleiermacher had captured the imagination of the age and would soon mould the theology of Oxford and Cambridge. Though he openly confessed himself a Protestant, nevertheless, like Origen of old, he sat at the feet of Clement, the old Alexandrian teacher of 190 A.D.
  19. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from MountainChristian in Regeneration And Believing.   
    The ironic thing is that you claim to not want to be labeled, but always run to the defense of Calvinism/Reformed Theology anytime that it is questioned, so you can take that pious sounding "it's based on Scripture" elsewhere. You chose to identify with an Independent Baptist KJVO forum when you signed up, and I'm pretty sure your information did not say, "I'm just following the Bible". No, you CHOSE to identify with Independent Baptists, either that, or you have deceitfully wormed your way into this forum. Since you likely will not admit to the latter, then if it's the former, it's rather convenient then for you isn't it, to get to pick and choose when you want to follow a label, and when you don't to follow one when said label gets trampled on by sound Biblical and logical arguments.
     
    Furthermore, you cry about shunning labels and yet choose the screen name "COVENANTer" which identifies you with a specific system of theology.
     
    Now all of the rhetoric you just posted is all fine and dandy if that's what you REALLY believed, but we both know that it goes further than just the simple surface bumper sticker slogans you post when you need to back up, regroup, attempt to get people to agree with you on levels of theology they accept first, and then make additional attempts later (preferably after I'm visibly offline) to try the sucker-punches again. Sorry, not while I'm watching
     
    Anytime you care to answer my previous post feel free (or feel casually determined, doesn't matter to me).
  20. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from MountainChristian in Regeneration And Believing.   
    [The above is what Covenanter said, not Dave] If there's one thing that this forum has shown in the last year, it's that it really doesn't make any difference what forum policy is, you are going to post what you want to post anyway, so why stop now?
     
    And as I predicted (and as I have ALWAYS maintained about Calvinists) that every time someone disagrees with a Calvinist, the first thing out of their mouth is "you don't understand Calvinism". [For recent proof of my consistent position on this, >see the end of my post here in refuting Covenant Theology] and this response to Dave is no exception.
     
    Spurgeon by today's standards would not be considered a real Calvinist. According to James White, and MOST modern day Calvinists, if you are not a 5 point Calvinist (or 7 if you go by Piper's standards) you are not really a true Calvinist. In fact, James White uses this argument frequently against those who profess to have been "ex-Calvinists". He maintained this position recently against Austin Fischer, the young man who wrote "Young, Restless and No Longer Reformed", and every Calvinist from Mohler to JD Hall agreed with White that Fischer was not truly a Calvinist because he did not fully embrace all 5 points, and was just as on the fence about limited atonement, free will, and preterition (or double predestination) as Spurgeon was.

    The only reason that Calvinists cite Spurgeon AT ALL is because they are aware of the accusations that Calvinism eventually strangles evangelism once a person realizes that Calvinism boiled down to its most logical conclusion leaves one hopeless if he can not prove that he was chosen by God and hopeless in "soul winning" endevours if God has not chosen those whom he is preaching to. As William Carey's mentor said to him when Carey ( another inconsistent "Calvinist") spoke about using "means" in salvation: "Sit down son, if God wants to convert the heathen he will do so without your help or mine". The only "converts" modern day Calvinist churches have are the members they've stolen from other Baptist churches. Show me ONE Baptist church in the United States (or ANYWHERE) where a Calvinist started a church from scratch and got their own converts. It's impossible. Why? Because to a Calvinist THAT'S NOT EVANGELISM because confrontational soul winning requires a person to make a DECISION and Paul Washer calls that "Decisionism".
     
    So even though modern day Calvinists have NOTHING in common with Spurgeon but the few inconsistent positions that Spurgeon held, the Calvinist needs Spurgeon to make the claim that they are "evangelical" because they have no other modern day examples to point to.
     
    And ALL CALVINISM IS HYPER CALVINISM. First of all, Calvinists can't even decide among themselves just what a Hyper Calvinist is. When Phil Johnson attempted to define it, and all Calvinists agreed with it and touted it as the best article ever on defining Hyper Calvinism, Dr. David Allen proved how Johnson's definition fit James White to a T. James White got furious and then Phil Johnson and "Turretin Fan" made a clarification that completely OBscured Johnson's article. And now, James White and others will argue what a Hyper Calvinist is NOT, but they refuse to give a clear definition of what it *IS*, and the very best definition they can give of what it is not is- "NOT ME".
     
    Calvinism stands and falls with whether or not God has determined and caused the salvation of every individual that is saved which therefore leaves the non elect to have either been passed over (infra) or purposely chosen for damnation(supra) which is precisely what the Westminster Confession and the Dortion canons state. It is not possible for God to have 'passed over' anyone whereby the non elect become damned by default as a passive neglect on God's part. I have already proven this in our article on "Would God Have ReprOBated Perfect Humans?" (which also proves that Calvinism makes God the author of sin regardless of how they claim to wiggle out of it in the WCF).

    Essentially, the soteriological system of Calvinism ONLY WORKS if God truly determines ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER COME TO PASS (as stated in the Westminster Confession III,3). Calvinism has made a futile attempt at blaming sin and human responsibility on secondary causation while at the same time trying to maintain God's sovereignty over all events that demand His complete control. If God determines all things, then that OBviously includes all of the secondary causes and collateral events and there are truly no  uncaused events that are not caused by the mind of God before the foundation of the world. 
     
    Calvinism's view of sovereignty, creation, and redemption depend on the assumption of God's all inclusive decree. However, if God made this decree before He created the world, compatibilism can not be true if Adam was given any freedom at all to eat the fruit in the garden. What if Adam chooses to NOT SIN? If that happens, then God made a decree ahead of time for nothing, and not only would God have made a decree for nothing, but it would prove He must not know the future (a casual accusation Calvinists themselves throw against their opponents regarding Open Theism) because if He did, He would not have made a decree to redeem anyone because redemption requires somebody to screw up to bring sin upon mankind, and if Adam fails to sin, then guess what happens to God's decree? Therefore pursuant to Calvinist logic if it is to be consistent, GOD HAD TO GUARANTEE THAT ADAM SINNED IN ORDER FOR HIS DECREE TO COME TO PASS.
     
    This dilemma has NEVER been satisfactorily answered by any Calvinist-and it never will be. It is why all Calvinism is "Hyper Calvinism" because the Calvinist who refuses the hyper is simply refusing to carry out his own theology to its utter conclusion, unwilling to face the music about the clear implications of Calvinist determinism.
  21. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from LindaR in Regeneration And Believing.   
    What is funny is that he appealed to Dave that if he is going to argue against Reformed Doctrine (not the Bible) he should at least "try to understand it". 
     
    It never ceases to amaze me how much Calvinists claim "sola scriptura" but then accuse their opponents of misrepresentation, and then admonish them to study the creeds, confessions and commentaries of the Reformers to better understand Calvinism/Reformed Doctrine. Calvinists prove to me over and over again they are really not "Sola Scriptura". It's the same logic used by the Jehovah's Witnesses "If you want to understand the Watchtower you have to understand the Bible...but wait...the Watchtower doesn't believe that and you need to study Russel's 'Studies In the Scriptures' to know that the Watchtower really believes the Bible" It's a constant circular reasoning trap. "Calvinism IS the gospel", and the only way to really know it is to know the confessions and creeds and writings of the Reformers, if all you know is the Bible, well then you can never truly understand Calvinism because the first time you disagree with a Calvinist, they will gladly point to an article in the Confessions (whether Westminster, London, Philadelphia, Helvetic Confessions, Lambeth Articles , Dortian Canons, etc...) and accuse you of not understanding the Reformers if you don't know these documents and authors. 

    This was my SOP in debate tactics when I was a Calvinist. Ironically, every Calvinist would've "Amen'd" every word I said back then, but now I "misunderstand" it. Well just how many authors, books, confessions, creeds, catechisms, commentaries does one have to read in order to understand Calvinism? And if Calvinism is really that predictable, then why don't Calvinist themselves agree with each other? I mean, after all, if God ordains all things, and His will can never be thwarted or altered or interfered with (Psalm 78:41), and it's surely God's will that His people have unity (Eph 4:13) and be of the same mind (Phil 2:1-5), then surely Calvinists are all on the same page, right?
     
    Don't try cashing that check.
  22. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from MountainChristian in Origen (184-254 A.d.) - Allegorical Method Of Interpreting Scriptures   
    From Jack Moorman's, Forever Settled, pages 69-70
     
     
     
    Origen (185 - 254) He is considered by many to be the most profound mind in the history of the church. But in fact it may be said that he had a greater corrupting influence on the early church and on the Bible itself than any man. Origen was born in Alexandria, Egypt, the cradle of Gnosticism. He and Clement before him were renowned teachers in Alexandria's famous Catechetical School. This school was a center of philosophical and scientific learning as well as theology.He practiced rigorous asceticism, memorized largo portions of Scripture and wrote commentaries on much of the Bible. Millers Church History states "he sought to gather the fragments of truth scattered throughout the pagan Philosophies and unite them to Christian teachings so as to present the Gospel in a form  that would not offend but rather ensure the conversion of Jews, Gnostics and cultivated heathen." Origen said, "Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins." He did not believe in the resurrection of the body. He believed in universalism, that all including demons would eventually be saved. His theology included a kind of reincarnation of the soul..   He was given to wild allegorizing of Scripture, saying - "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as written." Though Origen says "there never was a time when the Son was not." His attempts to explain the father’s "begetting" of the Son have somewhat left this issue in doubt. In the famous dispute that arose in Alexandria between Arius and Athanasius (4th century) over the deity of Christ, Origen was called the father of Arianism.   Adam Clarke says he was the first to teach purgatory. A number of the doctrines which later found their way into Romanism have their source in this man. J. H. Newman who was made a Cardinal after he left the Church of England for the Church of Rome said, "I love the name of Origen, I will not listen to the notion that so great a soul was lost." The fact that the Catholic Bibles contain the seven additional books known is the Apocrypha may be traced to Origen's inclusion of these books in his own "doctored" Greek manuscripts. This indicates that he placed tradition and Scripture on about the same footing a prime tenant in Roman theology.   Reumann in "The Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars" says that Origen had a team of scribes whose purpose it was to "correct" the manuscripts (pp S0-56). Westcott refers to his alteration of Mark 6:3. Hills states that he altered Matthew 19:17-21 and Burgon that he altered Luke 2:14. Kilpatrick says, "The creation of new variants ceased about 200 AD because it became impossible to sell them. From the 3rd century onward, even Origen could not effectively alter the text."Origen himself, referred to the tampering of manuscripts in his day. "Nowadays, as is evident, there is a great diversity between the various manuscripts, either through the negligence of certain copyists, or the perverse audacity shown by some in correcting the text, or through the fault of those, who, playing the part of correctors, lengthen or shorten it as they please."   Hort stated regarding Origen, "His Scripture quotations to the best of our belief exhibit no clear and tangible traces of the TR." However, Edward Miller, in his exhaustive study of the Fathers, found that Origen sided with the TR 460 times and with the WH 491 times. This is a powerful proof that even in Alexandria at this early date, the distinctive readings of the Received Text were almost as common as that of the other.   Hills states - "In the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John (that is, in the area covered by P.66) out of 52 instances in which the TR stands alone, Origen agrees with it 20 times and disagrees with it 32 times. Thus to assertions that Origen knew nothing of the TR becomes difficult indeed to maintain. It is argued that these TR readings are not really Origen's, but represent alterations made by scribes who copied Origen's works to make them conform with the TR. However, a number of these distinctively TR readings in Origen also appear in P66.   Origen spent the later part of his life in Caesarea where his corruptive influence affected later generations, including Eusebius (265 - 340) and Jerome (340 - 420). Newman says, "Palestine, where Origen spent the latter half of his life has always been devoted to his memory and faithful to his teachings."Wilkinson says, 'When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries ... His corrupted manuscripts of the Scriptures were well arranged and balanced with subtlety. The last one hundred years have seen much of the so-called scholarship of European and English Christianity dominated by the subtle and powerful influence of Origen."     ******************   Page 194   By 1833 the issue was becoming clearly defined. It was Premillenarianism, that is, belief in the return of Christ before the millennium, or Liberalism; it was with regard to the Scriptures either literalism or allegorism. As Cadman says of the Evangelicals of that day:   "Their fatalism inclined many of them to Premillenarianism as a refuge from the approaching catastrophes of the present dispensation… Famous divines strengthened and adorned the wider ranks of Evangelicalism, but few such were found within the pale of the Establishment. ROBert Hall, John Foster, William Jay of Bath, and in Scotland, Thomas Chalmers, represented the vigour and fearlessness of an earlier day and maintained the excellence of Evangelical preaching."   Here was a faith in the Second Coming of Christ, at once Protestant and evangelical, which would resist any effort so to revise the Scriptures as to render them colourless, giving to them nothing more than a literary endorsement of plans of betterment, merely social or political. This faith was soon to be called upon to face a theology of an entirely different spirit. German religious thinking at that moment was taking on an aggressive attitude. Schleiermacher had captured the imagination of the age and would soon mould the theology of Oxford and Cambridge. Though he openly confessed himself a Protestant, nevertheless, like Origen of old, he sat at the feet of Clement, the old Alexandrian teacher of 190 A.D.
  23. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from ThePilgrim in Origen (184-254 A.d.) - Allegorical Method Of Interpreting Scriptures   
    From Jack Moorman's, Forever Settled, pages 69-70
     
     
     
    Origen (185 - 254) He is considered by many to be the most profound mind in the history of the church. But in fact it may be said that he had a greater corrupting influence on the early church and on the Bible itself than any man. Origen was born in Alexandria, Egypt, the cradle of Gnosticism. He and Clement before him were renowned teachers in Alexandria's famous Catechetical School. This school was a center of philosophical and scientific learning as well as theology.He practiced rigorous asceticism, memorized largo portions of Scripture and wrote commentaries on much of the Bible. Millers Church History states "he sought to gather the fragments of truth scattered throughout the pagan Philosophies and unite them to Christian teachings so as to present the Gospel in a form  that would not offend but rather ensure the conversion of Jews, Gnostics and cultivated heathen." Origen said, "Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins." He did not believe in the resurrection of the body. He believed in universalism, that all including demons would eventually be saved. His theology included a kind of reincarnation of the soul..   He was given to wild allegorizing of Scripture, saying - "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as written." Though Origen says "there never was a time when the Son was not." His attempts to explain the father’s "begetting" of the Son have somewhat left this issue in doubt. In the famous dispute that arose in Alexandria between Arius and Athanasius (4th century) over the deity of Christ, Origen was called the father of Arianism.   Adam Clarke says he was the first to teach purgatory. A number of the doctrines which later found their way into Romanism have their source in this man. J. H. Newman who was made a Cardinal after he left the Church of England for the Church of Rome said, "I love the name of Origen, I will not listen to the notion that so great a soul was lost." The fact that the Catholic Bibles contain the seven additional books known is the Apocrypha may be traced to Origen's inclusion of these books in his own "doctored" Greek manuscripts. This indicates that he placed tradition and Scripture on about the same footing a prime tenant in Roman theology.   Reumann in "The Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars" says that Origen had a team of scribes whose purpose it was to "correct" the manuscripts (pp S0-56). Westcott refers to his alteration of Mark 6:3. Hills states that he altered Matthew 19:17-21 and Burgon that he altered Luke 2:14. Kilpatrick says, "The creation of new variants ceased about 200 AD because it became impossible to sell them. From the 3rd century onward, even Origen could not effectively alter the text."Origen himself, referred to the tampering of manuscripts in his day. "Nowadays, as is evident, there is a great diversity between the various manuscripts, either through the negligence of certain copyists, or the perverse audacity shown by some in correcting the text, or through the fault of those, who, playing the part of correctors, lengthen or shorten it as they please."   Hort stated regarding Origen, "His Scripture quotations to the best of our belief exhibit no clear and tangible traces of the TR." However, Edward Miller, in his exhaustive study of the Fathers, found that Origen sided with the TR 460 times and with the WH 491 times. This is a powerful proof that even in Alexandria at this early date, the distinctive readings of the Received Text were almost as common as that of the other.   Hills states - "In the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John (that is, in the area covered by P.66) out of 52 instances in which the TR stands alone, Origen agrees with it 20 times and disagrees with it 32 times. Thus to assertions that Origen knew nothing of the TR becomes difficult indeed to maintain. It is argued that these TR readings are not really Origen's, but represent alterations made by scribes who copied Origen's works to make them conform with the TR. However, a number of these distinctively TR readings in Origen also appear in P66.   Origen spent the later part of his life in Caesarea where his corruptive influence affected later generations, including Eusebius (265 - 340) and Jerome (340 - 420). Newman says, "Palestine, where Origen spent the latter half of his life has always been devoted to his memory and faithful to his teachings."Wilkinson says, 'When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries ... His corrupted manuscripts of the Scriptures were well arranged and balanced with subtlety. The last one hundred years have seen much of the so-called scholarship of European and English Christianity dominated by the subtle and powerful influence of Origen."     ******************   Page 194   By 1833 the issue was becoming clearly defined. It was Premillenarianism, that is, belief in the return of Christ before the millennium, or Liberalism; it was with regard to the Scriptures either literalism or allegorism. As Cadman says of the Evangelicals of that day:   "Their fatalism inclined many of them to Premillenarianism as a refuge from the approaching catastrophes of the present dispensation… Famous divines strengthened and adorned the wider ranks of Evangelicalism, but few such were found within the pale of the Establishment. ROBert Hall, John Foster, William Jay of Bath, and in Scotland, Thomas Chalmers, represented the vigour and fearlessness of an earlier day and maintained the excellence of Evangelical preaching."   Here was a faith in the Second Coming of Christ, at once Protestant and evangelical, which would resist any effort so to revise the Scriptures as to render them colourless, giving to them nothing more than a literary endorsement of plans of betterment, merely social or political. This faith was soon to be called upon to face a theology of an entirely different spirit. German religious thinking at that moment was taking on an aggressive attitude. Schleiermacher had captured the imagination of the age and would soon mould the theology of Oxford and Cambridge. Though he openly confessed himself a Protestant, nevertheless, like Origen of old, he sat at the feet of Clement, the old Alexandrian teacher of 190 A.D.
  24. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from Standing Firm In Christ in Regeneration And Believing.   
    What is funny is that he appealed to Dave that if he is going to argue against Reformed Doctrine (not the Bible) he should at least "try to understand it". 
     
    It never ceases to amaze me how much Calvinists claim "sola scriptura" but then accuse their opponents of misrepresentation, and then admonish them to study the creeds, confessions and commentaries of the Reformers to better understand Calvinism/Reformed Doctrine. Calvinists prove to me over and over again they are really not "Sola Scriptura". It's the same logic used by the Jehovah's Witnesses "If you want to understand the Watchtower you have to understand the Bible...but wait...the Watchtower doesn't believe that and you need to study Russel's 'Studies In the Scriptures' to know that the Watchtower really believes the Bible" It's a constant circular reasoning trap. "Calvinism IS the gospel", and the only way to really know it is to know the confessions and creeds and writings of the Reformers, if all you know is the Bible, well then you can never truly understand Calvinism because the first time you disagree with a Calvinist, they will gladly point to an article in the Confessions (whether Westminster, London, Philadelphia, Helvetic Confessions, Lambeth Articles , Dortian Canons, etc...) and accuse you of not understanding the Reformers if you don't know these documents and authors. 

    This was my SOP in debate tactics when I was a Calvinist. Ironically, every Calvinist would've "Amen'd" every word I said back then, but now I "misunderstand" it. Well just how many authors, books, confessions, creeds, catechisms, commentaries does one have to read in order to understand Calvinism? And if Calvinism is really that predictable, then why don't Calvinist themselves agree with each other? I mean, after all, if God ordains all things, and His will can never be thwarted or altered or interfered with (Psalm 78:41), and it's surely God's will that His people have unity (Eph 4:13) and be of the same mind (Phil 2:1-5), then surely Calvinists are all on the same page, right?
     
    Don't try cashing that check.
  25. Thanks
    Dr James Ach got a reaction from Standing Firm In Christ in Regeneration And Believing.   
    The ironic thing is that you claim to not want to be labeled, but always run to the defense of Calvinism/Reformed Theology anytime that it is questioned, so you can take that pious sounding "it's based on Scripture" elsewhere. You chose to identify with an Independent Baptist KJVO forum when you signed up, and I'm pretty sure your information did not say, "I'm just following the Bible". No, you CHOSE to identify with Independent Baptists, either that, or you have deceitfully wormed your way into this forum. Since you likely will not admit to the latter, then if it's the former, it's rather convenient then for you isn't it, to get to pick and choose when you want to follow a label, and when you don't to follow one when said label gets trampled on by sound Biblical and logical arguments.
     
    Furthermore, you cry about shunning labels and yet choose the screen name "COVENANTer" which identifies you with a specific system of theology.
     
    Now all of the rhetoric you just posted is all fine and dandy if that's what you REALLY believed, but we both know that it goes further than just the simple surface bumper sticker slogans you post when you need to back up, regroup, attempt to get people to agree with you on levels of theology they accept first, and then make additional attempts later (preferably after I'm visibly offline) to try the sucker-punches again. Sorry, not while I'm watching
     
    Anytime you care to answer my previous post feel free (or feel casually determined, doesn't matter to me).

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...