Jump to content

Brother Stafford

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

    524
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    15

Posts posted by Brother Stafford


  1. On 1/5/2017 at 3:36 AM, DaveW said:

    If Independent Baptist doesn't mean anything anymore then it is meaningless..........

    From my experience, the term Independent Fundamental Baptist helps me get a rough idea about the beliefs of an individual or a church.  It helps me to know that they aren't Catholic or Presbyterian or whatever and that they are KJV only, but that's about it.  IFB churches and individuals are so varied, that I believe the term to be almost meaningless and I believe it to be an obstacle to others.  

    When I tell people that I am an IFB, if they have heard the term before, they usually ask, "You mean like Westboro Baptist?"  If not that, they as, "You mean like Steven Anderson?" or "You mean like Kent Hovind?"  To which I reply, "No, more like David Cloud," but almost no one I have spoken with has even heard of David Cloud.

    My point is that most people, that I speak with, have either never heard of IFBs or, if they have, they equate it with hateful preachers, hateful picketers or crazy conspiracy theorists.  While they and I may share beliefs in some doctrines or practices, I would not align myself with them.

    I think the term IFB is most useful for other like minded and mindful searchers in finding each other, but to use with extreme caution and discernment.


  2. Here is what we know of what God says about the matter of gender-specific clothing:

     

    (Deuteronomy 22:5) "¶ The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

     

    He is clearly stating that there is clothing that exists for each gender that the other must not wear.  

     

    We can all come up with obvious and uncontested examples of clothing that are only to be worn by women (dresses, skirts, brassieres, pantyhose &c.). We must be able to do the same thing for men’s clothing.  If it is not possible for women to wear clothing that is only for men to wear, then Deut. 22:5 makes no sense.

     

    So, if a skirt or a dress, which covers the lower half of the body, is an unmistakable and exclusively female garment, of which a man is not to wear, a garment must exist, which covers the lower half of the body, which is unmistakably and exclusively male, which a woman is not to wear.  I believe that, today, that garment is called a pair of pants. I believe that the biblical equivalent were breeches.

     

    Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines breeches thusly:

     

    BREECHES, noun plural brich'es. [Low Latin braccoe.]

    A garment worn by men, covering the hips and thighs. It is now a close garment; but the word formerly was used for a loose garment, now called trowsers, laxoe braccoe.

    To wear the breeches is, in the wife, to usurp the authority of the husband.

     

    Breeches are mentioned five times in Scripture and they are all in relation to men. (Exodus 28:42, Exodus 39:28, Leviticus 6:10, Leviticus 16:4 and Ezekiel 44:18). 

     

    They are also implied by the use of the euphemism of covering one’s feet in Judges 3:24 and 1 Samuel 24:3.  Some argue that covering one’s feet may mean that they were sleeping (their feet covered by the blankets).  I find this unlikely since the variations of sleep (sleep, sleepeth, sleeping, slept, slumber, slumbereth and slumbered) are used 156 times and no euphemism would be needed for sleeping.  That would be akin to the word of God recording that Saul went into a cave to “saw some wood” or that King Eglon’s servants were ashamed that their king was “catching a few z’s.”

     

    I don’t believe that we can draw a distinction between women’s pants and men’s pants.  That would be like saying that men are allowed to wear men’s dresses, just not women’s dresses.  

     

    A male friend of mine used to wear low rise, tight fitting blue jeans.  It wasn’t until I went to a store with him that I learned that he bought women’s jeans.  He had been wearing jeans designed for women, for years, and I had no idea.  I just thought he dressed like an idiot.

     

    Perhaps, there are some who might be able to discern between men’s and women’s pants up close, but who can make that distinction from 100 feet away or more?  If I see a silhouette of a person wearing a pair of pants, how am I to know if that person is a man or a woman?  Most would say that they would then try to discern feminine shapes and anatomy, which causes us to look at and concentrate on areas which contain genitalia, which is something that I don’t believe that God wants us to be doing.

     

    I think attempting to draw a line between men’s pants and women’s pants is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.  We are told to "Abstain from all appearance of evil.”  When a liberty is in question, I err on the side of caution and self restriction, or like my father taught me, “When in doubt, do without.” If I am unclear on wether of not scripture permits something, or if a permitted thing will cause someone else to stumble, I have no problem abstaining from that thing or action.  

     

    The subject of women wearing pants is as clear to me as men wearing dresses, but I am aware that it is not as clear to others as it is to me.  To them, I would ask, “Why is it so important for you that women be allowed to wear pants when you know that it causes division and confusion?”

     

    Consider this example: An employer makes a rule that his male employees must wear black shirts and that his female employees must wear white shirts.  What would be a good reason for either gender to see how much of the opposing color they could get away with adding to their shirts before they could be accused of not wearing their assigned color?

     


  3. Since I joined, I have been able to access OnlineBaptist.com through a normal ISP internet connection.  For almost a week now, I have been unable to access OB that way.  The only reason I am able to access it now it that I am usign a proxy server and even then, I had to try many different proxies until I found one that would allow me to access the site.  OB is the only site with which I am having this issue.

     

    Anyone els having this issue?


  4. On 12/29/2016 at 0:13 AM, Saved41199 said:

    hello all! I'm new here and am hoping to get to know folks and learn. I come from a Roman Catholic to liberal Christian to fundamentalist road...and my soul finally feels at home. 

    Welcome Saved,

    We look forward to getting to know you.  This place is a wonderful resource for learning and fellowship.  Honest questions from a seeking heart are always welcomed and encouraged here, from what I have experienced.   I am from a similar path to yours.  Catholic to various pagan beliefs to liberal non-denominational Christian to Messianic to Fundamental Baptist.  Glad you're here.


  5. 6 hours ago, DaveW said:

    Length in and of itself is irrelevant.

    This is the key to "good preaching" - the Biblical substance.is what is important, not the volume, the intensity, or the length.

    So next time you are asked if you like "loud preachin' " or "long preachin' ", maybe you should think about it a bit before just answering "yep, sure".

    I like good preaching whether it is loud or quiet, whether it is gentle or hard, whether it is long or short.

    These things mean nothing IF the content is not there.

    I agree with you completely.  Content is essential.  Loud or long preaching for its own sake, at the expense of sound content, is like putting lipstick on a pig.  I think that we all meant was that we prefer a long and/or loud sound sermon rather than a short and/or quiet sermon that is sound.  

    Anyone who would sacrifice quality for quantity or volume should probably be slapped in the face with a dead fish. 


  6. 5 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

    ..."Why are we only meeting two days a week? Why can't we have something at the church every day? I would absolutely love that! I want to learn all that I can...I don't want to wait for several days between meetings! The early church met daily...in the temple and house to house. Why don't we still do that today?"

    I, too, would also appreciate the opportunity to attend church daily.  I was raised Catholic and they hold services every day.  Granted, the attendance is smaller during the week, but even the heretical papists manage to at least offer daily services.

    Now that I think about it, I would be surprised if a pastor refused a request by members who wished to meet every day.  I would imagine that daily services might need to be more like prayer meetings or Bible studies; it would be a bit much to ask a pastor to write seven sermons a week.  I would imagine that the number of people who would request to meet daily would be small enough that it could be manageable for most pastors.  

    N.N., I would start by asking your pastor if he would be willing to meet one on one with you every day.  It would provide an opportunity to become closer to him and may involve other things as well; discussing verses while dusting the lightbulbs or something.  Then start inviting other members to join the two of you &c.

    I set my own schedule, since I work from my home shop, so I think I just might give this a try.


  7. 8 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

    It has been my observation that sermon length is many times limited by other "stuff" that goes on before it. Things like announcements prayer request and praise, special music and any other number of things that go into the entire service. I, personally would prefer shorter time for this part of the service and longer time for the actual message.

    Can I get an amen on this?

    5 hours ago, OLD fashioned preacher said:

    2) People don't complain about a 2 hour sporting event or a 90 minute movie but complain about a 75 minute church service.

    ...and another on this?

    5 hours ago, OLD fashioned preacher said:

    5) Truth be told, they probably don't spend much time reading their Bible or listening to preaching at other times either ----- but, have a 2-3 hour sing and they'll be there for the whole thing!!

    ...and yet another on this?

    I think that this lack of desire or tolerance for lengthy preaching is a serious problem.  Too many people treat church as if it is an obligatory appointment to be kept as opposed to an opportunity to be submerged in God's word and fellowship.  I much prefer long sermons.  Not only do I enjoy them, but I need them.  When I go to church, I feel an insatiable thirst for the things of God and I am always frustrated when I only hear a short sermon that is over before it seems like it even began.

    I have not searched the scriptures on the subject, but my guess would be that longer bouts of preaching would be supported over shorter.  I would have a difficult time believing that Jesus only preached for 30 minutes, or even an hour, after 5000 people assembled before Him.  I would think that the first Christians would have been like thirsty horses at a watering hole when hearing Christ or the disciples preach.  Perhaps our culture is so overly saturated with the ability to hear sermons from a multitude of preachers at any time of the day or night (due to technology and recordings), that so many Christians have lost their thirst and their tolerance for preaching at length. 

    There is probably a certain amount of complacency involved as well.  Welcome a homeless person, who has not eaten in a week, into your home and they will be grateful for dry chicken and burned toast.  Cater to them for a month and they may begin to complain that their eggs are too runny or that you used too much spice in the pumpkin bread.  

    Many people forget that they are able to freely and safely assemble to read, hear and discuss the word of the almighty God of creation and that He joins us in the process (Matthew 18:20).  There are so very many places in the world where people risk their families, friends, jobs and even their very lives, for even admitting to be Christian or owning a Bible, much less assembling for services.  And we complain when we get too much of it.

     


  8. I recently found a website called Duolingo that is a wonderful way to learn Spanish to use when soul-winning or just because you might want to learn español.  

    If you decide to join (it's free) you can find me there by searching for me by my username, "BeardoMagnifico."

    Anyway, it is a wonderful way to learn Spanish (or many other languages) and it is very enjoyable also.

    www.duolingo.com


  9. With the release of the film, "Spotlight," earlier this year, many people who were victimized, in their youth, by priests, are coming forward about their abuse.  For the priests that are still alive to be punished, I believe that this is a good thing; however, what about those who were abused by priests that have since died?  Can anything be done for them?  Can they still file charges against the RCC itself?


  10. 1 hour ago, heartstrings said:

    The majority vote, in any given state, determines which candidate ALL of that state's electoral votes go to. My state, for instance, had a majority vote for Trump; so all 29 of our state's electoral votes went to Trump. I don't see how you can say votes don't matter. 

    The E.C. usually votes the same way that the public majority votes, but there is no rule, regulation or law that requires them to do so.  The E.C. has voted contrary to the public majority 4 times in the past and has now done so for the fifth time in our history.  The E.C. can vote however they please and they just have.  

    At last count, 59,794,934 individual voters voted for Hillary Clinton. 59,588,437 individual voters voted for Donald Trump.  That is a difference of 206,497 votes in favor of Clinton.

    However, out of 538 electoral voters, 228 of them voted for Clinton and 279 of them voted for Trump.  That is a difference of 51 votes in favor of Trump.

    For example, Maine has 4 electoral votes, but only three of them voted with the majority.  One of them voted against the majority.

    Unless I am missing something, the majority of individual voters chose Clinton, but the majority of E.C. voters chose Trump and Trump is now the President of the United States.  One can conclude that the E.C. voted contrary to the people.  How can you still think that the votes of the majority still matter if the E.C. can ignore the votes of the majority and elect someone for whom the majority did not vote?


  11. 5 hours ago, RSS Robot said:

    I’m amazed that we actually get to choose our government—the vast majority of human beings that ever lived on planet earth simply had to accept whatever government was thrust upon them. Millennia of people would marvel at the idea that we actually get to vote—what a privilege! America is a historical anomaly, and I’m grateful for it!

    Thankful to live in a nation where the voice of the people is still in play—I believe we witnessed history last night as an outsider overcame astounding odds and an enormous political/financial/media machine to become president-elect—against all odds and expectations. The whole process actually restores a bit of my faith that the American political system is still a reality.

    For the first time in my life, I did not vote at all in this election.  I am thrilled that Mrs. Clinton was not elected, but I am horrified at who was.

    However, the above quoted statements are demonstrably false.  The people elected Hillary Clinton.  The Electoral College, for only the fifth time in our history, voted contrary to the people. 51 electoral votes were favored over 224,985 votes of the majority of the people.  In all other elections (except 4), it just so happened that the E.C. voted the same way as the people, but the results of last night's voting should illustrate how the votes of the people do not, and have never, elected a president.   

    So it is clear, 538 people (currently) can vote however they please and can nullify the votes of how the majority of almost 325,000,000 people vote.

    And 51 of them just did.  Ignoring the 31 who voted for other parties, 228 of them voted for Clinton and 228 voted for Trump; which cancel each other out.  However, 51 more of them also voted for Trump.  51 people vs. 224,985.  

    So, stop kidding yourself by thinking that your vote matters.  It doesn't now and it never has.

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...