Jump to content
Online Baptist

Brother Stafford

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Brother Stafford

  1. I also have a copy of the entire five year series on mp3.  I have recently discovered Mr. McGee and I have found value in some of his sermons.  However, I have come across a few things that concern me.  As Brother Kurecki mentioned above, Mr. McGee seems to be a proponent of the gap theory.  Additionally, as I was beginning to listen to the 5 year series, I have heard him attempt to correct the KJV, stating that it should have been interpreted differently as he is teaching.

    To be honest, as soon as he attempted to give a "more accurate translation" of a passage, I stopped listening and have not resumed.  When anyone says, "Actually, this word should have been translated thus and so," that is an enormous red flag for me.  There is a difference between using Greek/Hebrew to assist in understanding a perfectly translated word or passage, and using Greek/Hebrew to give a "better" translation.  I condemn the latter and avoid the former.  

    I know a few Hebrew prayers (in modern Hebrew).  I know absolutely no Biblical Hebrew or Greek whatsoever and have no intention of learning any.  I have heard it said that, "A little Greek is a dangerous thing."  If I attempted to learn Greek/Hebrew, I know that I would learn it just well enough to confuse myself and get my head into places where it ought not go.  I could never understand it anywhere near to the extent that the original translators did, not do I believe that anyone presently alive, or will be in the future, could either. 

    I believe that God has preserved his words perfectly and completely within the pages of the King James Bible.  If this is true, then I do not believe that we need to meddle in areas where we do not understand (Greek/Hebrew).  I believe that all I need to understand God's words is a King James Bible, the Guidance of the Holy Spirit and my Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the English language.  

    Him being a proponent of the Gap Theory and attempting to correct the KJV are enough reasons for me to avoid reading or listening to any more from Mr. McGee.

    *Update: After posting this, I deleted all of my J. Vernon McGee files.  Much better.

  2. 29 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

    Brother Stafford,

    Are you aware that the King James translation makes reference unto the "skirt" 19 times in the Old Testmant, and that it reveals the skirt to be apparel for BOTH men and women?

    In fact, in Ezekiel 16:8 the Lord God presents an illustration wherein He HIMSELF is wearing a skirt.

    Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines the word, "Skirt" thusly:

    1. The lower and loose part of a coat or other garment; the part below the waist; as the skirt of a coat or mantle.

    2. The edge of any part of dress.

    3. Border; edge; margin; extreme part; as the skirt of a forest; the skirt of a town.

    4. A woman's garment like a petticoat.

    5. The diaphragm or midriff in animals.

    Which one do you think best describes what men (and the Lord God) were wearing?

    Which one do you think best describes the modern female garment I referred to as a "skirt" in my chart?"

    I am also aware that the word, "pants" is not found in the Bible and the word "dress" is not used in relation to attire, but I am confident that people reading this know the garments to which I am referring.

    Regardless, as I have stated above several times now, I am interested in hearing about why people, who share my convictions, avoid standing up for them.  If you would like to debate the validity of the issue, please start another thread.


  3. 8 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

    According to scripture, if a unbeliving dpeart, let them depart, the believer is not under bondage to them. Also, both spouses committed fornication against us. That tells me, if I am not bound to an unbeliever who has willingly abandoned me, I am free to marry.

    With genuine and humble respect to you, brother, I disagree. I am familiar with such arguments and they seem like "loophole" arguments to me.  To my ears, it sounds like when a brother is pestering his sister by poking her and their father says, "Jimmy, stop touching your sister."  Then Jimmy sticks his finger in his sister's face, about a half an inch away from her skin, and chants, "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you." What were their father's words?  "Don't touch your sister."  Was Jimmy obeying the words of his father?  In a court of law, yes.  What did their father mean?  Stop bothering your sister. Did Jimmy know that this is really what his father meant?  Yes.  Was Jimmy obeying his father's intent?  No; rather he was, in a sense, mocking the instruction of his father.

    What I notice, throughout Christendom, is that there seems to be a general attitude of, "How close to sin can I get and still be obedient?" instead of, "How close to sin must I get in order to be obedient?"  

    The default seems to be that we will live as much like the world as possible until someone can show us, indisputably from Scripture, that we must abstain from certain worldly behaviors.  

    (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. {22} Abstain from all appearance of evil." 

    When Paul was talking about eating meat sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8:7-13), he said that they could if they wanted to, but if they didn't want to, that was fine too; but neither decision was better than the other.  However, if eating the food would be a stumblingblock to others, then they must not eat it.  He said, "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."

    I believe that the Scriptures are clear enough about the subject, but the attitude that Paul says that we must have toward each other, seems to close up any loopholes that might be ferreted out.

  4. 7 minutes ago, Salyan said:

    And you didn't answer my question. ;-)

    I didn't answer your question because this was not a question about whether or not women should wear pants.  I gave reasons for why I believe what I believe as a preface to my question, which  was, for those who share my convictions, why do they not stand up for them?  If you would like to have a debate about women wearing pants, please feel free to start another thread on that topic.

  5. 3 minutes ago, Salyan said:

    So Br. Stafford, what is your position on women wearing any kind of bivurcated garments (breeches)? Are all breeches prohibited, or just external ones?

    Just so you know, a good number of the articles in your list that are listed as both are actually gender-specific. Men's shirts & ladies' shirts button on opposite sides. Ladies' boots and men's boots are very different in design - all shoes tend to have very gender-specific designs, except for perhaps runners. Hats also tend to traditionally be more gender specific (although that's getting blended more). Coats have the same button specs as shirts, and robes (I'm assuming you're talking bathrobes) also have very different designs for men vs women. Even pants (I know, I know...) are actually designed differently for men and women. It's not quite as clear cut as you're presenting it. (BTW, do we really need to bring underwear into it? That's a bit crude...)

     I am aware that many garments have male and female designs.  I was going to add an explanation of just that very thing, but I assumed that those reading it would understand my point without going into hair-splitting minutiae.

    From your responses, I can surmise that you disagree with my position.  I am quite familiar with the arguments for allowing women to wear pants.  What I am more interested in, at the moment, is why people, who share my convictions, avoid standing up for them.

  6. If I understanding it correctly, Scripture tells us that that we are not to accept willful disobedience amongst ourselves (our homes, churches &c.), that we are to call attention to such behavior and go through the proper process to address such things and separate ourselves from them if they do not repent.  (1 Corinthians 5:11-13, Matthew 18:15-17, Galatians 6:1,  2 Thessalonians 3:6, Hebrews 10:26)


    It is also my understanding that God believes that there are gender specific articles of clothing and that for one gender to wear the clothing that is specific to the other is an abomination and that we must not do it. (Deuteronomy 22:5) (Proverbs 7:10)


    I have seen sermons by a number of preachers that have used an illustration similar to the attached image at the bottom of this post.


    It would seem that there is only one piece of clothing that is specific to men and that is pants.  If we were to put pants in the “both” column, then there would not be any male specific clothing; it would be impossible for women to wear that which pertaineth to men and would render Deuteronomy 22:5 a meaningless warning.


    It is undisputed, among Baptist churches, that there is clothing that is only for women, which men are not permitted to wear, but there are very few that will acknowledge that there is clothing that is only for men, which women are not permitted to wear.  This is a relatively new phenomenon (Mid 20th century).


    “Breeches” are mentioned in verses, Exodus 28:42, Exodus 39:28, Leviticus 6:10Leviticus 16:4 and Ezekiel 44:18 and are worn by males (priests); however, they are also inferred in Judges 3:24 (Surely he "covereth his feet" in his summer chamber.”) and 1 Samuel 24:3 (Saul went in to “cover his feet”).  “Covering one’s feet” was a discreet term in regard to men going #2.  Just as today, when men need to do that, they drop their trousers and their feet are covered by the material of their trousers.   If those men were wearing dress-like garments, they would have lifted them up and their feet would not have been covered in that manner.


    There is enough Scriptural support, for the belief that women should never wear pants, to convince me and that this should be taken seriously by Christians and not just blown off and put into the category of personal preference.


    I also believe that there is scriptural support for Christians to dress modestly so as to not cause each other to stumble (Romans 14:13) and lust and fall into fornication and adultery (1 Corinthians 6:18).  I believe that both men (Exodus 20:26) and women (1 Timothy 2:9-10) are commanded to be modest both in attire and manner (Proverbs 6:25, Proverbs 7:10).


    (addendum) I have said all of the above merely for context and to preface the following question.  If you wish to debate this issue, please create a new thread.


    Why, then, are these issues virtually ignored in Baptist churches? In my search for a new church to attend, even the most promising of them post photographs on their websites that show women and girl members wearing pants, tight clothing, mini skirts, in bikinis or one piece bathing suits swimming with men and boys without their shirts on.  Many of the wives of the pastors and deacons are pictured with tops that conform to their figures.


    The few times that I have mustered up the courage to ask a pastor about this issue, they respond by saying something similar to, "You try telling women that they have to stop wearing pants and see what happens,” or “I used to talk about that, but the women say that they’ll stop coming to church if they can't wear pants, so I just stopped preaching about it.


    I feel very strongly about hair length on men and women, but, at this point, I don’t treat it as doctrine because of 1 Corinthians 11:16.  However, I have, thus far, not been able to find such an allowance for the issues of apparel and modesty.


    Why do we take such strong stands on separation from adulterers, fornicators, Sodomites &c., but not on the issues of gender specific apparel and modesty?


    Screen Shot 2016-09-08 at 3.42.12 PM.jpg

  7. I am not aware of any theologian, scholar, teacher, preacher or layman with perfect theology.  We can find issues with Bunyan, Spurgeon, our local pastor, neighbor or anyone else, with which to take umbrage.  I disagree with Brother Cloud on some of his beliefs (Christmas is a pet peeve of mine as well), but I try to keep the following points in mind.  1) He has made a wealth of knowledgeable, edifying and doctrinally sound information available in most areas.  2) He has more research and study time under his belt than I can possibly imagine. 3) I have had, what I thought to be, unshakably firm convictions about issues in the past that have turned out to be completely wrong.  Therefore, I choose to afford men like Brother Cloud the benefit of the doubt and the respect of being my elder in both years and Christian maturity.  His track record and his fruit have earned him such consideration, in my opinion.  

    If I am having a difficult enough time with one of his views, I send him a carefully worded, private email, requesting clarification and he always responds with kindness.  I realize that I am still a neophyte in many matters and tend to focus on issues concerning salvation and outright heresies first.  While things like celebrating Christmas is a huge issue for me (I am opposed to it), I have to remember that I suffer from the disease of being a fallen, fallible sinner who is searching for truth and that others are suffering from the same disease as well.

  8. If you have not read it, the original Felix Salten book, "Bambi," is an absolutely wonderful read.  It is almost nothing like the Disney film whatsoever, save for a few names of characters.  The follow up book called, "Perri," about a young squirrel, is also a wonderful read.  Then there's also, "Bambi's Children," and "A Forrest World," also by Salten.

  9. On September 2, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

    Yes, all who are born again through faith in Christ are responsible for the ministry and word of the gospel toward the lost world.

    On the other hand, upon what grammatical or contextual grounds may we claim that the "great commission" is a "church commission"?  In not one of the "great commission" passages (that is -- Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:14-20; Luke 24:44-53; Acts 1:4-8) is the "church" directly mentioned within the immediate context of those passages.

    Tell me if I am understanding you correctly.  Are you saying that the great commission was given to individuals, but not to "the church?"  If so, what does that look like in a practical sense?  Would our churches tell us to share the Gospel on our own time, as it were, but not do any collective soul-winning as a church function?  I am just wanting to understand your position correctly.

  10. Does anyone have any experience with starting a new church?  I have heard of IFB churches training and ordaining pastors, within the local church, and then sending them out to start new churches.  Has anyone here ever been a part of something like this?  How would one go about finding such a pastor that would be willing to relocate and undertake such a thing?  I would love to start a new church in my area, but I am not qualified to pastor a church.

  11. When I am asked if I can recommend a study Bible, I always suggest just a plain, Cambridge text KJV from Local Church Bible Publishers and then something like the "Wilmington's Guide to the Bible."  I am of the opinion that studies and commentaries or other helps should be kept separate from the Bible.  I think it runs too much of a risk of cementing the opinions of men with the Word of God in people's minds.  The only exceptions that I am comfortable with would be Bibles with reference columns down the middle and, of course, red letter Bibles, since they are not changing anything other than the colour of the text of Christ's words..

    Keeping the Bible separate form the words of men also saves people from having to purchase new Bibles if they find objectionable content or develop issues with the author of the study texts.  Both of my Bibles are LCBP and they are the highest quality Bibles that I have found and also happen to be the least expensive that I have found.


  12. 31 minutes ago, Salyan said:

    Hmm... that's weird... that's not what I see. Polls, Create New Topic, and then your screen, only under 'Topic Details' there are two tabs with 'content' and 'poll'. Maybe it shows differently cause I'm a mod though.  Maybe someone who's not a mod can take a look?


    Perhaps it's a duration of membership of a post count thing.

  13. 3 hours ago, Salyan said:

    When you create a topic in the poll forum, there are two tabs at the top. The second says 'poll' and is where you create the actual poll itself. As you begin to enter information, more will be revealed. (Ha - sorry - couldn't resist the cryptic statement. It really does open up as you start to enter info.)

    I can't find the tabs to which you are referring.  I have attached a screen shot that shows what I see when I choose to post a new topic in the Polls section.

    Screen Shot 2016-09-06 at 2.31.19 PM.jpg

  14. It is true that Paul tells us to marry if we cannot contain ourselves:

    (1 Corinthians 7:7-9) "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. {8} I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. {9} But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

    However, I believe that he is speaking to the unmarried, who have never before been married.  I believe that the verses that immediately follow are telling married people not to divorce and that if either the husband or the wife disobeys and leaves/divorces, then we are told not to remarry.

    (1 Corinthians 7:10-11) "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: {11} But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."

    Jesus' own words on the subject are as follows:

    (Matthew 5:31-32) "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: {32} But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

    (Mark 10:9-12) "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. {10} And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. {11} And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. {12} And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

    Mr. Hovind is using 1 Corinthians 7:7-9 and Genesis 2:18 to justify what seems to be blatant disobedience to the words of Christ Himself.  Some might make the argument that it is only adultery if the person that initiated the divorce remarries, but that the "innocent" spouse is free to remarry.  If there is scriptural support for such an argument, please point me to the appropriate scriptures for my correction.

    Mr. Hovind also creates straw man arguments to support his decision.  He says, "Many people go through a divorce and think that God can't use them anymore."  Mr. Hovind is correct in saying that God can still use people that have gone through divorce, but it does not follow that God wishes us to disobey Him and commit adultery by getting remarried because God can't use us if we're not married.  God can use a divorced person who remains obedient and unmarried just fine.

    Satan transforms himself as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14) and it is entirely possible that when Mr. Hovind prayed about the issue that it was Satan that suggested he call this woman.  I find it hard to believe that God would answer someone's prayers by suggesting that they commit adultery.

    Any thoughts on this? 

  15. 8 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

    I prefer preaching inspired by The Holy Spirit and at the instigation of The Spirit. Preaching at the preference of either a pastor or the hearers whims can be left out as far as I am concerned.

    Forgive me; I think my question was worded inappropriately.  My intention was not to inquire about preaching preference like a preference of ice cream flavor. What I should have asked was if people embrace preaching if it is hard and admonishing or if they avoid such preaching in favor of preaching that comes across less harshly. 

    The reason for my inquiry is because I am having a difficult time finding a church with a preacher that will issue admonishments; in general as well as to the members when it is needed.  It makes me wonder if I am looking for something that no longer exists.

  • Create New...