Jump to content
Online Baptist Community


Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


TheSword last won the day on October 9 2015

TheSword had the most liked content!


Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

17,958 profile views

TheSword's Achievements

  1. In addition to what DaveW said and along the lines of Swathdiver, depression can come in different forms. DaveW covered the emotional form in which events in our lives affect our emotional health. Swath talked about an environmental form in which the things we do to or put in our bodies can have a profound effect. I would like to add a physical or hormonal form in which our bodies fail to function properly. A great example of this is post-partum depression, which my wife has been through a couple times. Sometimes it's not related to any event in our lives other than the fact that in our sin-cursed world, the body breaks down and doesn't always work correctly. Just as our pancreas can stop producing insulin and cause diabetes or your kidney may stop filtering your blood properly and result in kidney failure, your thyroid or pituitary glands can stop producing the right amount of hormones and wreak all kinds of havoc. Whether we like to admit it or not, this fallen vessel we call a body functions or fails without or consent and has a profound impact on how our soul is able to interact with the physical creation. There are many potential causes for true depression, and the cause determines the treatment. Sometimes it is steady prayer and engagement with friends, family, or counselors and sometimes it's medication to get your body functioning the way it should. While I believe it can be sinful to keep yourself in a depressed state by focusing on the negatives in life and a refusal to find joy in Christ, true clinical depression is an ailment like any other illness. Making yourself (or someone else) feel bad about it will only make it worse. Acknowledging the problem and seeking the cause to determine the right solution is the first step to recovery.
  2. I had to chuckle at this. I applaud your desire to instill discipline in your future hypothetical children. However, you'll either learn that parenting is not always so black and white and has to be rooted in and tempered with love before discipline is effective OR your children will fear you (not in the godly way) in your presence but rebel against you in your absence. If you demand silence and compliance without first instilling a loving respectfulness, you will get neither immediate compliance nor respect. Certainly don't neglect the rod and spoil the child (Pro 13:24), but don't forget that it has to be based in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph 6:4).
  3. I am of the opinion that it is the latter application and the Great Commission applies to the individual believer. I think the greater witness of the New Testament bears out the directive to spread (i.e. preach) the Gospel to everyone: - Even if Jesus spoke the Great Commission only to the Apostles (questionable), part of that was to teach everyone to obey all of His commandments, which included the Great Commission itself (Matt 28:19-20; Acts 1:8). - Evangelism is a spiritual gift, but so is giving, service and mercy, but all are still expected to give and serve and be merciful. Spiritual giftedness speaks to divine enablement, not basic responsibility. (1 Cor 12-14, Eph 4) - All believers are ambassadors of Christ charged with helping people be reconciled to God (2 Cor 5:20; 1 Pet 3:15; Col 4:5-6; 1 Pet 2:9) - Acts 8:4 tells the entire church went out preaching the Gospel when they were scattered from Jerusalem. - If the Church is a body of believers and not a building, then it is the responsibility of the members of the body to spread the Gospel (Eph 4:12; 1 Cor 12:12) Given all of that, I would say that the individual believer has the divine "authority" to baptize based on the possession of the Holy Spirt and the inclusion as a member of Christ's church. If baptism is a self-declaration of faith in Christ and affirmation of inclusion into His church and the act itself imparts no grace/salvation or any other secondary blessing, then then the one assisting the immersion is irrelevant. Technically speaking, anyone can act as a representative of the church to assist the new believer in joining the fellowship. One does not need a preacher, priest, or apostle to obey God through baptism. However, baptism is also an identification with a set of doctrines/teachings (e.g. Baptist, Mormon, Catholic, etc.).This is why we Baptists accept baptisms from like-minded churches and reject baptisms in errant churches or false religions and require re-baptism for membership. In order to identify with a particular set of teachings, it is necessary to be baptized by a representative of that set of teachings. As has been tradition since Paul's day (1 Cor 1:10-16), the one preaching and teaching the true Christ are the ones who perform baptisms on those whom they instruct/evangelize. Having a leadership representative of the church also lends to conducting things decently and in order (1 Cor 14:40). As it happens, the pastors and deacons are the appointed, elected, or otherwise recognized leadership of a body of believers ascribing to a certain set of doctrines and they act on behalf of the church rather than as the mediator of grace in the way that the Catholic church does. To sum up...I believe any born-again Christian may baptize, but for the sake good order in the church and clarity of identification, the duly-designated representatives of the local church body should do the baptizing in the presence of the body of believers (i.e. the church). There's my two-cents.
  4. Along with what Ukulelemike said, if God did not allow us to make mistakes, then how could we be said to have free will? In essence, it is the same questions as "why does God allow evil or bad things to happen?" We either have free will or we do not and if God is choosing any of our actions for us, then it is the latter.
  5. It's not stated in those particular passages, no. However, taking in the context of the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, the pattern of co-regency in Judah is easily established as is the chaotic power transitions of Israel. The precedent was established in David's line for the southern kingdom of Judah when he placed Solomon in power a substantial amount of time before his death (1 Kings 1-2). See also 2 Kings 8:16 where Jehoshaphat and his son Jehoram reigned together as well as 2 Kings 15:5 stating that Azariah and Jotham shared the throne. The text certainly does not demand co-regency, but it does allow for it as a valid explanation. It also allows for the explanation given above by 1611mac, which doesn't actually contradict the co-regency explanation; it only changes the co-regent. Further, the contexts of 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles and the rest of the OT support that explanation. While it is not a concrete and unquestionable solution because neither singular verse makes it specific and clear, it is far from speculation.
  6. You're kind of double stating my point. The immediate nature of Nebuchadnezzar came at the end of the 3 month reign in Jerusalem. Both verses agree on that point. What is in dispute was whether that 3 months began when he was 8 or 18. My assertion is that he began to reign as co-regent when he was 8 and began to reign on his own from Jerusalem when he was 18. Truly, both passages even allow that he reigned by himself for a period of time in a place other than Jerusalem and then settled into the royal palace there at the end.
  7. You are still adding in an presumption regarding the immediacy of the narrative. Let's look at the text: 2 Chron 36:9 - Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord. 2 Kings 24:8 - Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. Here are the facts as presented: 1) Jehoiachin was 8/18 years old when he began to reign 2) He reigned in Jerusalem 3 months + 10 days Here is what is NOT in the text: ...and Jehoiachin was 8/18 years in 3 months when Nebuchadnezzar rolled in from Babylon... (i.e. no indication that the second fact immediately follows the first on the timeline). Here is what I find to be an intriguing clue. 2 Kings was written before the Exile and/or during the initial transition and was concerned with keeping accurate history. That is why you see more information about lineage. 2 Chronicles was written toward the end of the Exile or shortly after which is why you see more specificity that includes the totality of his time in power and length of his reign in Jerusalem as well as the focus on his failure that invited God's judgment. Genesis, and the Pentateuch and OT generally, were about the lineage and descent of the Israelites. Therefore, the important figures in the lineage are given prominence. In a highly inflected language like Hebrew, emphasis is often given with word position rather than description. That Abram is listed first attests to his importance to the narrative. Nothing is actually said of his birth order. The only information is that given is that Terah had 3 sons and their names were Abram, Nahor, and Haran. It is an assumption to say that because Abram was listed first that he must have been born first, because the text does not demand it. So I guess the short answer is yes, Abram's importance and significance to the purpose of Genesis would naturally put him first in any list, just as Shem is listed as first among Noah's sons. In every genealogy in Genesis, you'll find that the siblings of the lineage of importance are only mentioned when they are important to the narrative of that individual. Most instances just lists "sons and daughters" without specifying number or order.
  8. I think I touched on this in another thread, but the 2 Chron 36 vs. 2 Kings 24 is easily explained by co-regency. It was normal practice in Judah for the king to designate and empower his heir early in his reign to ensure the desired passage of power. The two books are likely referencing these two start points. On the Acts 7 vs. Genesis 11 issue, you just have to read a little closer. Genesis 11 states that Terah took his family from Ur to Haran after his son Haran (who already had a full-grown son in Lot and daughter in Milcah). Additionally, it is likely that Haran was the firstborn since his daughter was old enough to be wed to his brother Nahor. What's not stated is anyone's age when they left Ur or how long they stayed in Haran before Terah died. 75 years is not an unreasonable amount of time for Terah to have three sons, at least one of which had two full-grown children, and for Sarai to have gone without children long enough to be declared barren. The key to solving apparent discrepancies usually comes down to critical reading and stripping away assumptions in order to interact with the basic facts of the text before adding any suppositions.
  9. I think that particular interpretation is deeply flawed for a couple reasons. First, in the immediate context of the three verses that discuss Vashti's disobedience/refusal, absolutely nothing is said about her motives. It is 100% speculation and a personal imposition on the Bible to assert anything about why she did or did not do something. Second, even within the context of the entire chapter, no mention is made regarding in what state of dress Vashti was to be in. It doesn't even say whether she was to be wearing or carrying the crown. It is also 100% speculation to say in what manner she was supposed to present herself other than in obedience. The facts are as follows: 1 - The king called her into the party 2 - The king wanted to show off her beauty 3 - She refused 4 - The king got angry and removed/replaced her Anything beyond those facts is pure speculative storytelling. We could all probably come up with a list of good and bad motives for both of them, but they would be opinions, not Scripture, and therefore not a valid source from which to draw timeless principles.
  10. When I was walking through the dig at Hazor, one of the coolest things was seeing the burn line in the walls from when Joshua razed the city (Joshua 11:10-13). Walking up the same steps that Joshua and the Israelites tread was just really neat.
  11. Certainly, Bro. Stafford. Sorry for contributing to the derailing of the purpose of the thread.
  12. I find it equally vexing, but a large part of the dating problem is the secular assumptions that are made. One reason for the discrepancy is the secular archaeologists in the community refuse to revise the obviously flawed Egyptian chronology that they try to make everything tie to as a reference point. All other ancient near-eastern chronologies line up remarkably well when that association is removed.
  13. I don't use it for Green's translation, I use it for the text and parse it myself along with the KJV rendering, that's why I included a picture of a KJV for you. You'll also notice I included non-interlinear copy of the MT and TR as well. You're using special pleading and a loaded question to assert that I'm reading and supporting a Jay P. Green version of the Bible. Do you read Hebrew? If not, there's no point getting into this discussion. Co-regency. It was the common practice in Judah to ensure the desired succession. Yes, which has no substantive differences from the Beza 1598, Stephens 1550, Erasmus 1527/1535, and Complutensian Polyglot used in KJV translation. Question 1: What exactly do you mean by that? Question 2: Yes. I get the notion you're attempting to walk this back to the point that the originals and many of the early copies are no longer in existence. Am I correct in understanding your overall point?
  14. I agree in full with Bro. Scott's post, but if you need a visual... I'm not at home to take a picture, so I took screen grabs from what I do own. KJV.bmp MT.bmp
  15. Those are both certainly valid points of contention. However, when considering the stated purpose of the book, they don't detract from the utility of the method. Regarding the Scripture references, I would certainly expect to see a varying amount in any given encounter based upon who you are interacting with. Quoting Scripture to a Hindu with whom you have a wide philosophical/worldview gap will be mostly futile while doing it with an informed Christian with whom you have a doctrinal disagreement will define the conversation. Secondly, with Koukl's Columbo approach you're asking questions to force the other person to clarify and support his/her position and you are limiting your assertions and therefore your need to reference Scripture in support thereof. On the Calvinist thing, I honestly didn't dive into his theology deeply enough to notice. I read on the plane to/from Hawaii and was focused on gleaning the method more than the substance of his personal beliefs. Again though, I don't think the theology detracts from the method which I find incredibly useful. There are so few books with which I will share 100% of the theological position with the author that unless it's a book about theology, biblical interpretation, or commentary I really don't get concerned with it unless they're way off the deep end or the substance of the book is dependent upon the flawed theology. There are many great heroes of the faith which had flawed theology, even Calvinism, that had some great spiritual insight like Spurgeon or Moody. I'm glad you read and enjoyed the book, though. Thanks for the reply and honest engagement.
  • Create New...