Advanced Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


chev1958 last won the day on April 9 2011

chev1958 had the most liked content!

About chev1958

  • Rank
    Super Contributor
  • Birthday 09/10/1959

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Are you IFB?

Recent Profile Visitors

6,674 profile views
  1. Based on what your denomination teaches, I would disagree that we are united. For example, your belief that other forms of baptism – including infant baptism – are as equally valid as immersion baptism prevents you from being a member of the church I pastor. I'm not saying I believe baptism is a requirement for salvation; my point is that I believe other forms of baptism don't follow the example taught in Scripture and are not in accordance with Scripture. This is not bringing into question your salvation, but Anglicans and fundamentalists are worlds apart in doctrine. Since I have searched the Scriptures, I believe the doctrines taught of the Bible and IFSB is the closet “label” to my understanding of Scripture. (I hate labels because no one seems to have a solid definition of each label. I agree with parts of various labels, but I didn’t know I leaned dispensationalist until someone called me that. When I researched the term, I discovered that the theology best fit my understand of Scripture, but I’m not a tee-totaler. I guess it’s like being a two-point Calvinist, a five-pointer, or a seven-pointer; I agree with some parts of it, but not all.) Now, you say you have searched the Scriptures, yet you’ve come up with vastly different doctrines than I and the majority on this board have. Both of us can’t be right. That’s what I meant by interpreting Scripture through filters; we all view Scripture through our own biases, upbringing, and background. We’re all confident that our interpretation of Scripture is correct, and that’s based on the filters we have at our disposal. If I thought Anglicanism has the correct view of Scripture, then I would be an Anglican. For the life of me, I can’t understand from where Anglicans get their doctrines, just like I don’t understand Mormons, Catholics, 7th Day Adventists, and such. And I’m pretty sure you could say the same thing about IFSB. While I was in the military, we had to find new churches at each duty station. The first churches we would visit were IFSB churches, because we knew the basics of what they believed and taught. My prayers and research led me to an IFSB church that I believe best fit Christ’s definition of church. Being IFSB gave us a starting point. But we didn’t join the first IFSB church we found in the phone book and then proceed to tell the pastor where he’s wrong. After one move, we visited four different IFSB churches until we found the one God led us to. From previous post: I'm pretty sure many posters have given "proofs" to dispensationalism; you just don't accept those proofs, just like those IFSB folks who have given those proofs don't agree with your "proofs" either. It’s obvious that you’re not IFSB, so the problem is someone who isn’t IFSB joining our forum, saying we’re wrong, and then trying to proselytize. While there are differences in what IFSB folks believe, there are more similarities. When we disagree, it’s a family disagreement. When someone outside the family sticks their nose in, though, we push our differences aside and circle the wagons to protect ourselves from outside attack. So, while there are some IFSB members here who may agree with covenant theology, they can discuss that here because they're “family,” i.e., fellow IFSB. The same can be said for IFSB'ers who hold to dispensationalism, Calvinism, Arminianism, close/closed communion, the women-in-pants issue, etc. They have the similar upbringing and background. And there are limits even to that; several members who claimed to be IFSB were so extreme that they were shown the door. But non-IFSB folks are not family in this context, and they are patiently tolerated until they cross the line. I don’t know where that line is, but in my opinion, you have crossed it.
  2. Bible Study Ends in Bloodshed LAGIUNA BEACH ( Fla.) -- What witnesses say started out with Bible study took a strange turn before ending with the arrest of a 39-year-old Panama City Beach woman. While there are two versions of what happened, deputies say that Hiedi Rhodes was nearly too drunk to tell her version, and that it was vague and didn't match what the other three witnesses told them. That inconsistency, and the testimony of the other three women gathered for the Bible study, is likely what led to her arrest. Deputies arrived to a call for help to find two women in a physical fight inside a home on Laureno Place, in the Laguna Beach area. After breaking up the fight, two deputies separated the women to hear both sides of the story. During what deputies describe as a "rambling" testimony, Rhodes said that the other woman had attacked her because she'd called her boyfriend earlier, and told him that his dog was roaming the neighborhood. The other version of the story does not paint Rhodes as the victim, but rather as the aggressor. According to that version of the story, Rhodes was sitting in the living room of the home with three other women after Bible study when she pulled out a marijuana cigarette and started to light it. The resident told Rhodes not to smoke in her home, and that she should leave. The witnesses say that sparked an argument, and Rhodes hit the other woman in the face. (Deputies noted that the other woman did in fact have a bloody nose.) As the woman tried to call the police, the fight spilled into the kitchen, which is where the two women were when deputies arrived. Aside from the victim's bloody nose, Rhodes had a small bruise on her forehead where she said the other woman had punched her, and some blood coming from an ear piercing, where Rhodes says the other woman pulled her earring. Deputies placed Rhodes under arrest. A marijuana cigarette was found on the living room floor, which each woman said belonged to the other.
  3. Archaeologists Find 'Gay Caveman' By ninemsn staff April 7, 2011 It has taken five thousand years, but it appears a caveman has finally been able to come clean on his sexual orientation. According to archaeologists, the way the "gay caveman" was buried suggests he was considered more effeminate than other male peers, the Daily Mail reports. The skeleton of the early homo-sapien was recently unearthed during excavations in the Czech Republic, and is believed to date back to between 2900 and 2500 BC. Experts say during that period, men were traditionally buried lying on their right side, with the head pointing towards the west, alongside weapons, hammers and flint knives. In this case, the man was on his left side, his head facing west, and surrounded with household jugs, not weapons — usually symbolism reserved for women. The team carrying out the dig said because of the layout of the grave, it was likely to indicate the person was a transvestite or "third gender", which is sometimes associated in Western Culture with being gay. The late Stone Age man was also buried with an oval, egg-shaped container, usually associated with female burials. "From history and ethnology, we know that people from this period took funeral rites very seriously so it is highly unlikely that this positioning was a mistake," said lead researcher Kamila Remisova Vesinova. "Far more likely is that he was a man with a different sexual orientation, homosexual or transvestite. What we see here does not add up to traditional Corded Ware cultural norms." Another member of the archaeological team, Katerina Semradova, added: " We believe this is one of the earliest cases of what could be described as a transvestite or third-gender grave in the Czech Republic."
  4. Japan Disaster Caused by DADT Repeal By Stephanie Samuel Christian Post Reporter Controversial self-proclaimed prophet Cindy Jacobs has linked the natural disasters in Japan to the U.S. repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and is calling on Americans to repent. In a video last week, Jacobs, president and co-founder of missionary training group Generals International, asserted that her prophetic message that natural disasters would result from the December repeal of the 1993 ban on open homosexuality in the U.S. military has come true. “I know some of you don’t understand the warning that I gave. … When we break God’s laws then it actually causes cycles of nature to come afterwards. It’s like we have disrupted the laws of God. I said if this is true, then what we will see is natural disasters, we’ll see weather patterns going crazy, we’ll see major storms, we’ll see floodings and so forth,” she said, citing the biblical passage Hosea 4. “And this has happened.” Jacobs first issued a warning about consequences to the repeal of DADT early this year. She spoke of a possible link between allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military and the unusual phenomenon with the thousands of dead birds and fish in Arkansas. President Barack Obama signed the DADT repeal legislation in December. Weeks later, on New Year’s Eve, some 5,000 blackbirds fell from the sky, lying scattered throughout the town of Beebe, Ark. Then a couple days later, a 100,000 fish were found dead on the shore in the same state. Jacobs is now tracing last month’s earthquake and tsunami that decimated Japan’s shoreline and ignited problems at the Fukushima nuclear power plant back again to the DADT repeal. “I had received some criticism by people who did not understand the warnings that I gave about natural disasters coming as a result of us repealing in the U.S. ‘don't ask, don't tell,’ opening up our military to open homosexuality,” the GI head said, noting that Scripture defines a union to be between a man and a woman. “Everything I said has happened,” she asserted. “We need to repent for turning away from God.” Just after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, which killed at least 25,000 people, others have made similar comments about the disaster being warning signs from above. The Rev. David Yonggi Cho, senior pastor of the Yoido Full Gospel Church – the world’s largest church – came under fire when he said the Japan disaster was likely “God’s warning” to the Japanese people, most of whom are not Christian. Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara also pondered whether the disaster was divine punishment. He later apologized for the remark. In the U.S., Republican television pundit Glenn Beck said of the disaster that “a message is being sent.” Beck is a Mormon. It is unclear what faith, if any, Shintaro professes. A Public Religion Research Institute and Religion News Service news poll, released last month, foundthat nearly six in ten white evangelical respondents believe that natural disasters are signs from God rather than a sign of global climate change. A majority also believe that natural disasters are evidence of what the Bible calls the “end times.” An additional 53 percent of white evangelicals believe that God punishes nations for the sins of its citizens. Jacobs, speaking to viewers of the GI News webcast, urged for prayer for the hurting people in Japan while calling for repentance for disrupting God’s law. At the same time, she reminded the audience that God is a merciful God. “If we’ll pray … these things do not have to happen.”
  5. I agree - you're preaching to the choir. It bothers me when people (including pastors) say, "This is what God told me about this passage" and it goes against what God taught me about the same passage. Both can't be right.
  6. Looks pretty good, but I think I'd stick to monthly. A weekly will be an awful lot of work "fer shure, dudette!"
  7. Well, the husband didn't come to our service last night, so I guess he's made his decision that his family and spiritual condition aren't worth restoring.
  8. Yes, we should view Scripture as God intended, but our own biases/viewpoints/beliefs, etc., can influence how we interpret certain passages of Scripture. That's what has led to the multiple denominations we have today. There are different viewpoints even among IFSB folks, i.e., dispensationalism vs convenant theology. Depending on which of those you believe determines how you would interpret certain Scriptures. In another thread, someone asked if a pastor is qualified if he marries a divorced woman, even though she would be his only wife. I believe that would disqualify a man from the pastorate based on my reading of Luke 16:18. But other IFSB churches don't see that situation as a disqualifier.
  9. With all due respect, you view/interpret Scripture through a different filter than we do, based on the postings you've made in numerous threads. We're more than happy to explain why we believe what we do and to allow you to explain why you believe the way you do - but that doesn't mean you have the right to come onto our board and tell us we're wrong and expect to be welcome here.
  10. An update: The husband/pastor was to attend our sending church this past Sunday, but refused to. He says he was treated unfairly by our sending pastor. He indicated that he would attend our church on Sunday night, but didn't. His wife and children attended Sunday morning, but didn't come Sunday night because the husband was supposed to be there. There is some concern that the husband may attend our Wednesday night service tonight; the family will be attending as well. I'm supposed to be the husband's accountability partner, and we're supposed to talk daily, but the husband hasn't contacted me since Sunday morning. He hasn't returned our sending pastor's call on Saturday. Our sending pastor has directed me to send the husband to our sending church rather than attend my church. It's going to be tough to tell a friend that he's not welcome in our church, even though I know it's for his own good. Please keep praying for this family.
  11. This is to all non-IFSB posters: This is a IFSB forum. We are here to fellowship and exhort each other, not constantly defend our beliefs to folks who simply want to challenge and argue with us. You agreed to that when you joined. We've tolerated your non-IFSB doctrine to the point that several of you are taking the role of moderators by answering questions with your beliefs, not the beliefs of the members of this forum. If you don't agree with us, that's fine. I'm sure there are plenty of other forums where you can find support for your beliefs. I, for one, am sick and tired of these ad nausem debates that go on and on, and then resurrect themselves to go on and on again. I've allowed discussion to continue for discussion sake, but it's obvious that we're not going to change each others' minds. I'm employing the spiritual principle of separation and asking you to please leave us alone and join forums that agree with you. Pastor Mitch Holmes Moderator
  12. There's another preachers fellowship going on that same time in Kalispell, Montana, at Rocky Mountain Baptist Church. September must be a popular month way up there.
  13. Military Indoctrinated on Gays Kissing, Behavior By Rowan Scarborough Washington Times March 23, 2011 Four branches of the military have begun sending training material to 2.2 million active and reserve troops as a prelude to opening the ranks to gays, with instructions on, for example, what to do if an officer sees two male Marines kissing in a shopping mall. Key themes are that sexual orientation will no longer be a bar to service, that all service members must respect each other, and that the partners of gay troops will not receive the benefits of heterosexual spouses. “We are going to make [gay ban] repeal training expeditiously,” said Maj. Joel Harper, an Air Force spokesman at the Pentagon. “It’s great training.” The briefings first target commanders, who will have to enforce the new law and deal with disputes, and then the entire force. The slides, vignettes and talking points by the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps are similar. The Marine Corps, which a Pentagon survey found holds deep opposition to lifting the ban, plans to publicly release its training material April 1. A Marine source provided copies to The Washington Times. “Situation,” it begins. “You are the Executive Officer of your unit. While shopping at the local mall over the weekend, you observe two junior male Marines in appropriate civilian attire assigned to your unit kissing and hugging in the food court. “Issue: Standards of Conduct. Is this within standards of personal and professional conduct?” The answer to Marines: “If the observed behavior crosses acceptable boundaries as defined in the standards of conduct for your unit and the Marine Corps, then an appropriate correction should be made. Your assessment should be made without regard to sexual orientation.” The vignettes’ talking point states that commanders cannot rule a bar off limits simply because it caters to gays. Nor can commanders bar an off-duty homosexual from marching in civilian clothes in a gay-pride parade. A Marine recruiter may not refuse to induct a gay civilian even though he views it as violating his religious beliefs. Commanders may honor a request not to shower with known gay service members. “Marines are expected to obey lawful orders and could be subject to discipline or adverse administrative action if they refuse orders, even if such refusal is based on strong, sincerely held, moral or religious beliefs,” the briefing states. The briefings were dispatched to service members worldwide, including to combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan, as part of a major indoctrination program ordered by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to ensure that gays and heterosexuals will serve and fight together. President Obama signed legislation to repeal the military’s ban on open gays. Once training is completed this summer, Mr. Gates must certify to Congress that repeal will not hurt readiness before the ban officially ends. The Service members Legal Defense Network, which led a long effort in Washington to kill the ban, said the military is taking too long to finish the training. “By and large, the materials are on target,” said Aubrey Sarvis, the group’s executive director. “Where we take exception is with the timeline that the Army has articulated for completing training as late as August. We believe training can be wrapped up by the end of next month, especially given the fact that there will be an additional 60 days for training that may take place after certification.” In another scenario outlined in the Marine material, a lesbian Marine approaches her platoon sergeant and states “she can no longer tolerate her heterosexual roommate.” The answer: “The Platoon Sergeant must take a very active and positive leadership approach with a focus on conflict resolution and professional obligations to uphold the policy.” A separate training guide answers 23 frequently asked questions, such as “is consensual sodomy still a punishable offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice?” Answer: “The U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces found that private, consensual sexual activity, to include consensual sodomy, regardless of sexual orientation, is a protected liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment.” On the question of whether transgender or transsexual individuals may join the military, the answer: “No. Transgender and transsexual individuals are not permitted to join the Military Services. The repeal of DADT has no effect on these policies.” The main slide presentations emphasize that chaplains will be free to express their views on homosexuality. “Free exercise of religious expression, with law and policy, remains unchanged,” says one Army slide. Soldiers may not seek an early discharge because they do not want to live or serve with gays. Same-sex partners of service members do not qualify for medical, housing or travel benefits. A “speaker’s note” accompanying the Army slides states, “This brief is NOT an attempt to change anyone’s opinion or beliefs about the subject of homosexuality. However, we as an Army must always remember our Army values and respect each other’s beliefs in order to accomplish the mission.” George Wright, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said the service is posting on an internal website a variety of training aids on the end of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” as the ban is known. “Training on the repeal of DADT began last month with ‘chain-teaching’ at the senior levels, and the materials have been made available to Army commanders worldwide, to include those in Iraq and Afghanistan.” At a Pentagon teleconference from Kabul last month, the top U.S. enlisted man there said training will take place during combat operations. “Our goal is to not allow a unit to return to home station and have the unit responsible for that,” said Army Command Sgt. Maj. Marvin Hill. “While we own those soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, we’re going to execute that training on the ground. We hope that it will have little impact on their combat and security operations here.”
  14. Slow-smoked pork barbecue (is there any other kind?), with homemade fries, baked beans, and salad. A little bit of the South here in Iowa. I even conjured a mustard-based sauce and a vinegar-based sauce. Yummy! Since we were having guests, I also prepared the glorified ketchup most of the world calls barbecue sauce. Nothing left over.