Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

TheSword

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

    1,078
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Ukulelemike in Eve's Transgression?   
    ooooh boy...
  2. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from robmac68 in Eve's Transgression?   
    Maybe this timeline will help with some analysis?
    Gen 2:15 - God puts Adam in the Garden to dress it (serve in/labor) and keep it (keep/guard/observe)
    Gen 2:17 - God tells Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil
    Gen 2:21-25 - God creates Eve
    Gen 3:1 - The serpent asks if God told them not to eat of every tree
    Gen 3:2-3 - Eve says they can eat of every tree except the one and adds the requirement not to touch
    At this point, there are 3 possibilities (as mentioned by several people above):
    God reiterated and expounded on the command after Eve was created Adam passed on the command and added that Eve shouldn't touch it. Eve relayed the command as she heard it. God reiterated or Adam passed on the original command without addition. Eve added the requirement when talking to the serpent. Gen 3:6 - Eve takes the fruit, eat is, and gives it to Adam who also eats it.
    The verse suggests that Adam was there during the encounter and he did not correct her. It is also one long sentence that lists events but does not necessarily specify time order. the entire phrase "with her; and he did eat" is actually one Hebrew word. I suppose then, it is also possible that they ate simultaneously.
    Anything we come up with is obviously speculation, but it stands to reason that Eve making up the new rule not to touch on the fly is unlikely given Adam's lack of intervention or correction. Therefore, either God added or Adam added it, which means Eve did not knowingly twist God's Word. That would put the responsibility back on Adam then wouldn't it?
     
  3. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Ukulelemike in Be Ye Not Unequally Yoked With Unbelievers   
    Certainly, but the premise I'm getting at is not to give up on the garden, especially since it belongs to God. Just as you said, "keep nourishing it and loving it and watering it." We are not at liberty to stop working until the Master calls us home.
  4. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Alimantado in Opinions About Evolution?   
    Please allow me to clear some of this up. As I was reading a news story with an evolutionary slant on a website, I engaged with him and others on the errors of evolutionary theory and deep time. He clearly wanted to have a more involved debate than the limited space of the comment section would allow and my network doesn't seem work well with the site anyway; so I gave him some reference material and said he could find me on here if he wanted to continue the discussion. My intent was never for him to jump head-first into the forum, but rather to have a personal conversation with him and go from there.
    I'm a little disappointed that a good witnessing opportunity was squandered so quickly. He may never have relented or changed his mind and come to saving faith, but you don't know that he wouldn't. I seriously doubt anyone on this board would potentially be swayed by any of his arguments, and so I would have expected a kinder and more Christian approach to be taken with someone who willingly ventured into an environment opposed to his worldview. Rather than using his willingness to engage the Christian community in a civil manner to patiently and genuinely present Christ, this thread turned into an all-out assault as if the wall of faith was somehow penetrable. I'm saddened by the lost opportunity to chip away at a lost soul's faulty worldview and honestly sow some good seed. We are all called (and held responsible) to sow the Gospel seed. How people respond to that is in God's hands (1 Cor 3:7-8). We should be willing to offer the Gospel and explain/defend our faith with meekness, fear, and love as many times as someone is willing to listen to it (1 Pet 3:15). If we truly have the love of God and love for God and are concerned to do His will, we will never stop offering someone a chance to hear the truth and come to Jesus until they refuse to hear it any more. We should never stop chipping away at unbelief. If God is concerned with every soul, and so should we be.
    So what if he was here with an agenda and is intent on sowing doubt. Is your faith shakable? His might be; but you'll never know if you don't try.
    So what if he rejects every fact and argument. Is your willingness to endure his unbelief with patience limited to his willingness to believe you? God waits patiently for every sinner, and so should we (2 Pet 3:9).
    So what if he'll never accept the truth. Does that change your relationship with Jesus? Is it too much for you to let him exhaust his excuses? Eventually he will either accept the truth or disengage show his true heart on the matter.
    I understand that this site is not geared specifically toward evangelism, but when we willingly reject an opportunity to witness to an unbeliever, we're out of tune with the mission of Jesus Christ and we've forfeited the eternal reward being a faithful servant.
  5. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Ukulelemike in Opinions About Evolution?   
    Please allow me to clear some of this up. As I was reading a news story with an evolutionary slant on a website, I engaged with him and others on the errors of evolutionary theory and deep time. He clearly wanted to have a more involved debate than the limited space of the comment section would allow and my network doesn't seem work well with the site anyway; so I gave him some reference material and said he could find me on here if he wanted to continue the discussion. My intent was never for him to jump head-first into the forum, but rather to have a personal conversation with him and go from there.
    I'm a little disappointed that a good witnessing opportunity was squandered so quickly. He may never have relented or changed his mind and come to saving faith, but you don't know that he wouldn't. I seriously doubt anyone on this board would potentially be swayed by any of his arguments, and so I would have expected a kinder and more Christian approach to be taken with someone who willingly ventured into an environment opposed to his worldview. Rather than using his willingness to engage the Christian community in a civil manner to patiently and genuinely present Christ, this thread turned into an all-out assault as if the wall of faith was somehow penetrable. I'm saddened by the lost opportunity to chip away at a lost soul's faulty worldview and honestly sow some good seed. We are all called (and held responsible) to sow the Gospel seed. How people respond to that is in God's hands (1 Cor 3:7-8). We should be willing to offer the Gospel and explain/defend our faith with meekness, fear, and love as many times as someone is willing to listen to it (1 Pet 3:15). If we truly have the love of God and love for God and are concerned to do His will, we will never stop offering someone a chance to hear the truth and come to Jesus until they refuse to hear it any more. We should never stop chipping away at unbelief. If God is concerned with every soul, and so should we be.
    So what if he was here with an agenda and is intent on sowing doubt. Is your faith shakable? His might be; but you'll never know if you don't try.
    So what if he rejects every fact and argument. Is your willingness to endure his unbelief with patience limited to his willingness to believe you? God waits patiently for every sinner, and so should we (2 Pet 3:9).
    So what if he'll never accept the truth. Does that change your relationship with Jesus? Is it too much for you to let him exhaust his excuses? Eventually he will either accept the truth or disengage show his true heart on the matter.
    I understand that this site is not geared specifically toward evangelism, but when we willingly reject an opportunity to witness to an unbeliever, we're out of tune with the mission of Jesus Christ and we've forfeited the eternal reward being a faithful servant.
  6. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Professor_Physika in Atheist Newbie!   
    Welcome, Prof. I'm a little surprised you took me up on my offer. Most people don't and usually are pretty unkind about it. I'm happy to continue our conversation during the week (I try not to get on here too much on the weekend so I can focus on my family). I always appreciate civil engagement so again, glad you're here.
  7. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Old-Pilgrim in Scriptural Election?   
    Not even little bit. I was merely taking your point regarding election meaning God choosing some to election to its natural Calvinistic conclusion. I disagree wholeheartedly with just about everything Calvinism asserts about salvation.
  8. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from heartstrings in Scriptural Election?   
    Not even little bit. I was merely taking your point regarding election meaning God choosing some to election to its natural Calvinistic conclusion. I disagree wholeheartedly with just about everything Calvinism asserts about salvation.
  9. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Scriptural Election?   
    Since we're talking about election, I think an important point to establish is whether or not it is the cause or result of salvation (or neither). There are 23 instances in the New Testament in which elect/chosen (eklektos) is used. Contextually, some are clearly not referencing truly saved Christians as has been noted above. Of the ones that clearly are, only one passage has anything to say about the cause/effect/time sync relationship between election and salvation:
    1 Peter 1:1-2 - Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
    Here, election is preceded by foreknowledge and accomplished through sanctification of the Spirit (which is a salvation-specific event). According to this passage, election must be viewed as the result of salvation rather than its cause. In order to maintain Scriptural integrity, any passage that does not specifically mention the elect, but commonly believed to reference it, must read in light of this one.
  10. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from wretched in Avoiding burnout   
    Thank you, wretched. That was a very mature thing to do/say. In that, we can all follow your example.
  11. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from 20JC12 in Mormon with IBC Pastor friend... feeling confusion and guilt   
    ​Don't be sorry, it's a great, and important question. In short, they have always been the same person and "son" is descriptive of the relationship and essence rather than physical offspring. Consider John 1:1 
    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
    This one beautifully packaged verse boldly declares that Jesus (the Word) was God. In the Greek it's actually a little more emphatic and a woodenly literal translation would read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word."
    Reading on to verse 3 - "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." If we go back to the original Creation account in Genesis 1:1, we see this:
    "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Every verse after that declares the acts of creation as an action taken specifically by God. Moving forward a little bit to Genesis 1:26 when God created man we find this:
    "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:" So now we have a singular God referring to Himself in the plural, which shows the wonderful truth revealed in John 1.
    There are many passages throughout the Bible I could reference for you to show that Jesus claimed to be God and His disciples believed Him to be God, but the above should give you a good starting point.
    Regarding your question about Matthew 27:46, there are two things I want to point out. First, Jesus is directly quoting Psalm 22. The second thing is that even though Jesus is God, He is not the same person as the Father. God's three-in-oneness is a divinely complicated concept that we'll always have a little trouble finding the right words for; but the essential truth that the Bible teaches is the God the Father is God, God the Son (Jesus) is God, and God the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit is God but the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. They are three distinct persons existing in a single entity. God is the perfectly complete being who has always had love and fellowship within Himself and we, being made in His image, are a reflection of that which is why we have the innate need to relate with others.
    The critical thing to understand though, is that Jesus is God and that is the only reason He had any power to save us from our sin. Only an infinite God could pay for the infinite amount of sin of humanity. Only a sinless Jesus could have atoned for the sins of others, and only God is sinless.
  12. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to wretched in Avoiding burnout   
    Ok fellas, good enough. Something does tell me there is a level of misunderstanding on both sides (probably more mine).
    No hard feelings
  13. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Miss Daisy in Avoiding burnout   
    ​The bunk at the church comment was taking your notion to an extreme in order to figure out where exactly you want to draw the line. From what I can gather from your posts you don't think the man should worry about spending any time with family outside of when they accompany him on ministry duties. I truly hope that I'm wrong and that I've misunderstood you. While the question itself was a hyperbole, it still stands: do you really think a husbands commitment to his family stops at financial support and physical security?
    Regarding your second point about your posts being in response to NN, I must respectfully point out that you started on this line of thought with your first post which was way before NN even joined the discussion:
    ​This post is where you changed Adam's honest question about ministry overload to men being pressured by wives and kids to stay home. For some reason I can't grasp, it seems you think loving your wife and kids beyond finance and security is sinful. Please tell me I'm wrong because I don't want to think you're that cold toward family.
     
    Tonight, I'm not going to church like I normally would on Wednesday. Instead, I'm going to go to the hospital where my 2-month-old daughter is hooked up to IVs and getting poked and prodded too much to sleep. I'm going to hold her close, kiss her head and cheeks, rock her, and sing to her as long as I'm not in the way of the doctors and nurses. That's not mothering, that's a dad-thing. Whenever she's not in my arms I'll read my Bible, maybe one of my school books, and be on the look out for witnessing opportunities like I always am. I'll love on and comfort my wife; make sure she's comfortable after being there for all day while I've been at work. I'll talk to her about all sorts of things, some spiritual, some personal, some amusing. If you feel I'm being too fleshly or unnaturally affectionate and are compelled to rebuke me, go right ahead. It won't bother me at all because I'm going to be a godly, loving father and husband.
  14. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to DaveW in If it's not in God's word, don't do it?   
    Sorry NN, motorbikes and cars are mentioned.
    Psa 108:9 ....over Philistia will I triumph.
    Act 12:20 .....but they came with one accord 
    And Acts 27:44 shows the prisoners surfing 
    And the rest, some on boards.....
     
    I know surfing wasn't on your list but hey........

  15. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from DennisD in Avoiding burnout   
    ​The bunk at the church comment was taking your notion to an extreme in order to figure out where exactly you want to draw the line. From what I can gather from your posts you don't think the man should worry about spending any time with family outside of when they accompany him on ministry duties. I truly hope that I'm wrong and that I've misunderstood you. While the question itself was a hyperbole, it still stands: do you really think a husbands commitment to his family stops at financial support and physical security?
    Regarding your second point about your posts being in response to NN, I must respectfully point out that you started on this line of thought with your first post which was way before NN even joined the discussion:
    ​This post is where you changed Adam's honest question about ministry overload to men being pressured by wives and kids to stay home. For some reason I can't grasp, it seems you think loving your wife and kids beyond finance and security is sinful. Please tell me I'm wrong because I don't want to think you're that cold toward family.
     
    Tonight, I'm not going to church like I normally would on Wednesday. Instead, I'm going to go to the hospital where my 2-month-old daughter is hooked up to IVs and getting poked and prodded too much to sleep. I'm going to hold her close, kiss her head and cheeks, rock her, and sing to her as long as I'm not in the way of the doctors and nurses. That's not mothering, that's a dad-thing. Whenever she's not in my arms I'll read my Bible, maybe one of my school books, and be on the look out for witnessing opportunities like I always am. I'll love on and comfort my wife; make sure she's comfortable after being there for all day while I've been at work. I'll talk to her about all sorts of things, some spiritual, some personal, some amusing. If you feel I'm being too fleshly or unnaturally affectionate and are compelled to rebuke me, go right ahead. It won't bother me at all because I'm going to be a godly, loving father and husband.
  16. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Avoiding burnout   
    ​The bunk at the church comment was taking your notion to an extreme in order to figure out where exactly you want to draw the line. From what I can gather from your posts you don't think the man should worry about spending any time with family outside of when they accompany him on ministry duties. I truly hope that I'm wrong and that I've misunderstood you. While the question itself was a hyperbole, it still stands: do you really think a husbands commitment to his family stops at financial support and physical security?
    Regarding your second point about your posts being in response to NN, I must respectfully point out that you started on this line of thought with your first post which was way before NN even joined the discussion:
    ​This post is where you changed Adam's honest question about ministry overload to men being pressured by wives and kids to stay home. For some reason I can't grasp, it seems you think loving your wife and kids beyond finance and security is sinful. Please tell me I'm wrong because I don't want to think you're that cold toward family.
     
    Tonight, I'm not going to church like I normally would on Wednesday. Instead, I'm going to go to the hospital where my 2-month-old daughter is hooked up to IVs and getting poked and prodded too much to sleep. I'm going to hold her close, kiss her head and cheeks, rock her, and sing to her as long as I'm not in the way of the doctors and nurses. That's not mothering, that's a dad-thing. Whenever she's not in my arms I'll read my Bible, maybe one of my school books, and be on the look out for witnessing opportunities like I always am. I'll love on and comfort my wife; make sure she's comfortable after being there for all day while I've been at work. I'll talk to her about all sorts of things, some spiritual, some personal, some amusing. If you feel I'm being too fleshly or unnaturally affectionate and are compelled to rebuke me, go right ahead. It won't bother me at all because I'm going to be a godly, loving father and husband.
  17. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to Ukulelemike in If it's not in God's word, don't do it?   
    While I appreciate the humor meant, the topic does bring up some good thoughts.
    Assuming it is actually referring to how we go about assembling together as a church, its pretty clear there are a LOT of things going on that the Bible doesn't mention, nor condone:
    Sunday School; a Choir; tiny cups and prepared wafers for the Lord's Supper; a specific meeting place, or 'church house'; a raised platform with a pulpit; Bus ministry; professional evangelists; orchestras, (and you might include a band, though I wouldn't); men in suits and ties, women in dresses; et al.
    The question is, because the Bible doesn't condone them, does that automatically imply they are forbidden or wrong?  I would say, No, they are neither, in most cases, right OR wrong, as long as they are always understood that they are NOT 'biblical', per se. 
    It seems the Bible really gives little direction, either directly or implied, as to what we do in the assembly. Clearly there is preaching, sometimes music, psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, there is prophesying, though I would say that it preaching, teaching, exhortation, and fellowship, and breaking of bread. Does this mean that we CAN'T do anything else? I don't believe so, as long as we don't move into identification with the world, doing things their ways, keep what we do according to biblical standards.
  18. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Miss Daisy in Avoiding burnout   
    ​Sooo...your advice to Adam would be to get a bunk in the church office and just send his wife and kids a check? Maybe a letter detailing how much work he's doing for the church? 
    I truly don't understand your line of reasoning. You're overdramatizing a question about being personally overloaded and making it about capitulating to the demands of a wife and kids that don't care about God or His church, which I'm certain is not the case. I don't think anyone here is talking about avoiding to church/ministry to stay at home and watch movies with the wife or take over motherly duties for the kids. You're taking someone's real struggle with task-saturation and making it a soap box issue about men using their family as excuses to avoid church/ministry.
  19. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to DaveW in Avoiding burnout   
    Totally aside from the fact that this  has really helped Adam.........
    1Ti 3:4-5
    This puts family before church.
    If he doesn't rule his family well, he can't  lead the house of God.
    And vs 12 repeats the requirement of being a godly father to be qualified to be a deacon.
    Good father first, good pastor (or deacon) second.
  20. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to DennisD in Reverend?   
    ​Great post, very frustrating topic though as it doesn't seem to be "sinking in".  I suppose that's why your post wasn't replied to since it's hard to debate the 1st and 3rd person comparison.
  21. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from DennisD in Reverend?   
    ​Again, I think you've completely missed the point. I'm trying to tell you that you're taking these passages out of context and are passing over the plain meaning in favor of your preconceived notions. If you were really taking the context to its fullest extent, you would see Jesus was talking directly to Nicodemus about what it means to be born-again and why it is necessary; not making a grand statement about the timeline of God's love. That one little phrase you're stuck on is a statement about Jesus coming to earth and taking on bodily form, which was an action that occurred in the past respective to when Jesus was speaking. That is why it's a past tense statement. In order to arrive at the conclusion that God had love for the world only in that brief moment in time you have to bring that conclusion to the table before even reading the passage.
    What I'm saying is that you're committed to this idea that Jesus hates all non-Christians before you even examine John 3:16 and you're forcing this idea into the text. That's why you have to hang your argument on this past/present tense nonsense. Your bias toward this concept is highlighted by the fact you only apply it in this one instance where it isn't even merited and shows that you don't read the Bible in a consistent and humble fashion. If you did, you could only come to the conclusion that Jesus still hates you personally as I explained in my first post. You have yet to respond to, so I'll ask you directly: in light of Romans 5:8, how can you say that Jesus doesn't hate you?
    In response to your last question, it doesn't even make sense, but is a good example of a begging-the-question fallacy. First of all, if you were consistent in the way you applied the language, you'd realize that the statement in John 3:16 is entirely in the 3rd person ("God", "He", "His", "the world"). What you've given in your example statements is a 1st person ("I") statement to a 2nd person entity ("you"). The statements aren't even comparable. A better comparison would be to say something like, "The man loved his son so much that fed him so that he might live another day." That statement doesn't say anything about whether or not the man still loves his son or that the son is still alive at all. In order to say anything about the man's current relationship with his son you have to make an assumption. It doesn't logically make sense to say that the man stopped loving his son after dinner. However, given that the man loved his son enough to provide food, there is no reason to think he would not continue loving his son.
  22. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to No Nicolaitans in Avoiding burnout   
    ​God made a "family" (husband and wife) during the 6 days of creation. The family was the first institution created by God. So there it is...God was first, and the family was second. 
    Just because the Bible doesn't specifically address "family time" doesn't mean it shouldn't exist and be a priority. After all, husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. That's a tall order for a husband to fill. Christ's example (as our example) shows us that as husbands, we are to put our wife's needs above our own...and that includes her emotional needs. A wife needs her husband to be there for her, to listen to her, to love and cherish her. If she's dealing with something during a time when a church ministry is happening, the husband needs to take care of his wife. He will have other opportunities to minister to others, but his wife needs him now. To neglect that is ungodly. So, husbands have a clear command to take care of their wife. On the other hand, I'm unaware of any such command given to husbands in relation to serving in church ministries. 
    I've seen way too many families break apart due to the constant pressure put on them (husbands in particular) to be involved "in the ministry". Way too many! We speak of church ministry models...I'll be honest, and I don't claim to be right, but the model that I see (apart from the apostles) is one of people witnessing daily. It wasn't just on Thursday nights and Saturdays like today's church model makes it. It was part of their daily lives (from what I can tell). This would certainly allow for a more balanced life with your wife and children...witnessing daily as the opportunity arose instead of being gone several nights (or days) per week and leaving your family without you.
    We are presented with opportunities every day to witness to others, yet many bypass those daily opportunities in favor of "church time" soul winning and other ministries. If we would witness as the opportunity arose daily, it would make a much bigger impact on this world than the one or two times throughout the week when the church has a scheduled time...and we would have happier families.
    Now with that said, let me say this too...I'm not opposed to (or against) churches having scheduled times of soul winning or any other ministry. I think it's needed, and it's a great opportunity for anyone who is able to participate. What I am against is putting pressure on people to be involved in those "ministries" and telling them things like, "You're not right with God if you don't come out on Thursday night soul winning...Saturday bus-calling, Sunday afternoon nursing home ministry, etc!" From my experience, this stems from a pastor's ego wanting to be able to brag to others about how many are involved in "the ministry". 
    Encourage people to witness daily...that will reap greater results. Offer opportunities with church-sanctioned ministries...OFFER them. If people are able to be involved, be thankful for it.
    ...and husbands...take care of your families.
     
     
  23. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Miss Daisy in Avoiding burnout   
    I think what we're talking about here isn't necessarily putting all family issues over church participation, but rather when framed by biblical principles such as "bring up a child in the way that he should go," "provoke not your children to wrath," "husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it," "dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife," etc., there is an inherent requirement to take care of the family in totality in fulfilling the will of God. To be right with God I must be right with my spouse. To be right with God I must provide for and raise godly children. That doesn't mean every time my kids want to skip church for ice cream I need to give in because family trumps church. It doesn't mean that I should pass on a ministry opportunity because my wife wants to go on a dinner date every Wednesday night. What it means, at least to me in the way I'm trying to explain it, is that I can't let commitments to church functions prevent me from the God-imposed responsibility of providing and caring for my family; nor can I let frivolous family desires trump a responsibility to spread the Gospel.
    In the end, it all points back to God and what He says "must" be done rather than what I think "should" be done. Some of those "musts" include the family.
  24. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to heartstrings in Reverend?   
    Jhn 15:9
    As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
  25. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to Salyan in Avoiding burnout   
    Um, Wretched? 1 Timothy 5:8. And I challenge that taking proper care if one's family requires a good deal more than just paying the bills and buying food. Time spent and emotional support is equally as important. How else do you 'bring up a child in the way he should go' if you're not around to bring him up?
×
×
  • Create New...