Jump to content
Online Baptist

HappyChristian

Moderators
  • Content count

    17,869
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    122

HappyChristian last won the day on December 13

HappyChristian had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About HappyChristian

  • Rank
    Trust in the Lord with all thine heart...
  • Birthday 02/26/1960

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location:
    PNW
  • Are you IFB?
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

57,777 profile views
  1. Whats for Supper...

    We have a few fish shops, too. One just down the road from us. They sell pretty much anything. My mom wants to stop there and see if they have any smoked salmon (I don't care for it smoked, but she likes it a bit, as does my brother - and my hubs will eat it). This is the second fish shop that's been there. I don't know if it's the same people or not, but it is on property owned by the Jamestown Indians; they have an oyster shop down the road as well. We drive past Discovery Bay every time we head to church. Captain George Vancouver sailed into the bay and "discovered" it, hence the name. I love the water. We are blessed to be so near it. After church this afternoon, we had tuna fish (ha -fish!) sandwiches.
  2. Eternal Security vs O.S.A.S

    (Let me add that many folks teach that OSAS is a calvinist doctrine, because of their belief in perseverance - which is tied into their idea of salvation...I said above that most are against it, not because they don't teach it, but because they must persevere or they aren't part of the elect...that isn't biblical, and actually puts the onus on the believer) I'm glad it helped you, BabeinChrist. Sadly, sin can grab hold of us and get a stranglehold. Stay in God's Word, spend time in prayer, and continue to ask God to deliver you from this. He will. Sometimes something like this takes a long time, sometimes it's instantaneous. My own parents smoked and knew it was wrong. They quit, and then very foolishly (my mom's word, not mine) started again (they were out of church at the time). They got things right with God, got back into church...but it was years before they were able to quit. Addictions are very real, and smoking is no less of one than any other. I'll be praying for you.
  3. Eternal Security vs O.S.A.S

    It is so. "Perseverance of the saints" is a mainstay of the reformed belief. It isn't the same, because we don't persevere. Perseverance and preservation are vastly different in both definition and result, even though more modern definitions add preservation along with perseverance. I know of a number of churches that are not reformed that will also wait for evidence before accepting a candidate for baptism. That is something that has to be decided by the pastor of each church. Folks who lead people to a saving knowledge of the Lord need to make sure the new Christians are properly discipled so that they understand what the Bible teaches about the Christian life. Altar calls also vary from pastor to pastor. I've been in churches where they are a hot mess of emotionalism, and I've been in churches where they are simply invitations to come pray and allow the Holy Spirit to work. I would agree that far too many people believe they are saved and are not...this is the problem of easy believism (but we have to be careful not to go from that side of the pendulum to the Lordship salvation side of the pendulum).
  4. Eternal Security vs O.S.A.S

    One thing of which to be aware: most Calvinists (or those who follow reformed doctrine) are against the idea of OSAS for simply because: they do not believe in an individual's free will acceptance of Christ as Savior. They believe that the elect must persevere in order to prove out that they are, indeed, part of the elect. And, should they "unpersevere" (stray away from the paths of righteousness), that is proof of never having been part of the elect to begin with. We are indeed always saved, once we are truly saved. However, there is an easy believism that has permeated Christianity that causes problems. One of those problems is false profession. Another is false security. Salvation is simple. It truly is. But it does involve repentance, which far too many people have popularized now as a "work" and therefore cannot be part of salvation. The fine line is that many of those who pray a prayer are trusting in that prayer, rather than the person of Christ. Assurance comes from the fact that they prayed. And as they continue in life, regardless of what they become involved in, they look back to that prayer and assure themselves (or their family assures themselves) that "once saved, always saved." Two examples that my husband and I just discussed come to mind. We know two young men who we watched grow up...both of them made professions as children. And, boy, did they know scripture! And yet...they are both homosexual and proud of it. They are both "married" and successful. No hint of any conviction, no "doubts" that they are indeed saved, because "once saved, always saved." Now, I know folks might say that we cannot judge the heart, so maybe they are. I'm sorry, but that's not what the Bible teaches. The Bible does NOT teach that anyone will LOSE their salvation. But it DOES teach that there are false professors. "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit - we have an apple tree that has been dying for a while. The fruit has not been very good at all. This is true of people as well. We are all corrupt until we are truly saved. If we make a profession, but our fruit is corrupt, we are not saved. That does NOT mean a saved person will never sin. It DOES mean that a saved person will be convicted because he or she is indwelt by Almighty God, and God is, upon salvation, working to form us to the image of His Son. God is not going to allow His child to live in continual, habitual abomination. Now, let me again say that once we are saved, we are always saved. But the term has become a mantra for those who want to convince themselves that they can willfully and continually sin and be saved - and no conviction of sin, no consequence of that continual, willful sin. There is a balance - once we are saved, we are saved. We are still in our physical bodies, and so there will be sin. But a truly born-again believer will be convicted - and if the person doesn't respond to the conviction, spiritual spanking will follow somehow (else, the Bible says, we are not His children). If none of the happens, the person was never truly saved. Salvation was not lost, it was never had to begin with. I am not averse to using the phrase "once saved, always saved," because once a person is saved, it is for always. Eternal security. Phew - just some really quick thoughts this morning. I hope it makes sense...and if there is anyone out there who can explain it better, please jump in.
  5. Whats for Supper...

    We had our annual Christmas date - we go to dinner or lunch and then shop for whatever presents we might still want to get. We went to a restaurant that is known for their "fish and chips" (being here right on the ocean, seafood is a staple in just about every restaurant, and most restaurants around here have their own version of fish and chips). My grandparents began coming to this area to vacation and then moved here in the 1970s. We would come with them often. And that restaurant was one of our favorites. The fish is not as good as it was then, sadly, but the memories... Tonight we'll have crock pot beef (steak, cooked like a roast).
  6. Whats for Supper...

    So did I! Although it was the American version.
  7. Eternal Security vs O.S.A.S

    I think both of you need to take a step back and breathe. It seems that you are talking at each other, saying much the same thing. For some reason you've rubbed each other the wrong way (at least that is certainly my impression of your interactions in this and other threads). Sadly, I do know of Christians who have stupidly said things like "you can go murder your grandmother now and you'll still go to Heaven." My mother's best friend was told this when she got saved as a teenager. It's no wonder she had no interest in learning anything more about the Lord. The fact of the matter is that eternal security is a Bible doctrine, and we are promised it in God's Word. We do not persevere, we are preserved. Christianity has, in many instances, equated OSAS with eternal security (and Omega is correct that there are minute differences between the two; but minute is the key...). Because once we are saved, we are saved. Period. And that is something with which the two of you are in agreement, even if you don't seem to realize it. So, let's, as I said, take a step back and a breath. And let's rejoice that we will meet in Heaven - and we won't talk at cross purposes!
  8. Whats for Supper...

    Whoa! I'm glad you weren't aboard at the time! I hope nobody was hurt.
  9. Whats for Supper...

    That sounds tasty. Yesterday we had our pie social at church - with roast beef pot pie, pizza pie, and Romanian Shepherd's Pie. For dessert there was lemon meringue pie, cherry pie, and almond joy pie (as well as brownies). Tonight we had hamburgers and fries.
  10. Are We Teaching the Bible Well in Our Churches?

    I think that people who were at one time people of faith know deep down where to look in times of trouble. Even the lost will often talk about turning to God during times of trouble (although if they do not turn for forgiveness, "turning" to God is moot for the lost). Sometimes that is a reason God allows trouble/distress - to cause us to turn to Him.
  11. Are We Teaching the Bible Well in Our Churches?

    All of those verses use the same type terms - back turned rather than face. This is John Gill's comment on the verse: "for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face;" - they turned their faces to images of wood and stone, and worshipped them; and they turned their backs upon the Lord, his worship and ordinances, and apostatized from him; which the Targum thus expresses, "for they turned their backs on my worship, and did not put my fear before their faces:' The idea of turning one's face towards something means acknowledging that something, and, in this case, worshipping it. Turning the back connotes ignoring. The face can't be turned toward something while the back is turned to it. Matthew Poole said: "They have turned their back unto me, and not their face;" - they turn their faces wholly towards their idols: it notes the openness of their apostasy, Jeremiah 7:24 (But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.) Honestly, I believe that verses like Jer. 2:27 (and Jer. 7:24)teach us about Israel's apathy and their total lack of desire to follow God. It begins with lukewarmness, IMO. I think the principle of the verses teach the end result of allowing ourselves to be lukewarm.
  12. Are We Teaching the Bible Well in Our Churches?

    Steven, just a clarification here - Jer. 2:27 does not say that the people turn their faces toward God and put their backs to Him. The part you referenced says: "for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face:" This says clearly that the people God is referencing turn their backs rather than their faces to God. Forgive me if I misunderstood what you were saying.
  13. HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

    First, I don't believe there are any geocentrists on the board (I may be wrong), although there are creationists who are, wrongly, geocentric in their universe eye-view. But what I want to address is "some nonsense about us not animals..." Now, it is obvious that you accidentally left out a word or two and so this clause is not self-explanatory. So forgive me if I jump to the wrong conclusion as to your intent. Were you saying that humans not being animals is nonsense? Because, I'm sorry to tell you (well, no I'm not) that, if that is your intent, the nonsense lies on your side of the court - we are not animals. Humans were created in the image of God, with a soul. Animals were not. Humans were given dominion over the animals. Just because we don't have to be blind to scientific facts, it does not follow that we have to blindly accept the unbliblical teachings of "science falsely so called." In fact, we are commanded to avoid them: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith..." 1 Tim. 6: 20, 21 Believing in Jesus means accepting Him at His Word - and His Word is very explicit in teaching us that He is the Creator.
  14. Evolution Evangelism

    There is no such thing as "empirical" evidence of evolution. No evolution has ever been observed. By anyone. And that makes evolution a pseudo-science, one based on assumptions made and guessed at (and proven wrong time and time again). Rather, evolution is a system of faith - because there is no empirical evidence, the person who accepts evolution must accept the words of those who propagate the teachings. And that is faith. Christianity is also faith. But herein lies the difference: Christianity is faith in the Creator God, based on His Word - and He was there at the time of creation, so He would know. Evolution is faith in fallible men who have been proven to be in error over and over. Let me see, as I reason this out...to which faith will I subscribe? Which is the more reasonable and logical? Hmmm...it would have to be to accept the words of the One Who was actually there. God is a God of reason and of logic, of order and of truth. He can be completely trusted in all areas, science included (let's never forget that "scientists" used to teach that the earth was the center of the universe, among other things that have been empirically proven incorrect - like spontaneous generation. Empirical observation has proven that life must come from life. And it all began when God said, "Let there be..."). I think Henry Morris, who was not an IFB, put it very well in this article (apologies in advance for the length), The Splendid Faith of the Evolutionist "Christian faith is essential for salvation (Ephesians 2:8) but in one sense it is not all that difficult to have this kind of faith. After all, the amazing majesty, beauty and complexity of the universe should make it easy to believe in a great Creator God (Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:20), and the overwhelming body of objective evidence for the historicity of the person and work of Jesus Christ—including His bodily resurrection from the grave makes it easy enough to believe in His saving power. 1 But the faith of the evolutionist and humanist is of another order altogether. His is a splendid faith indeed, a faith not dependent on anything so mundane as evidence or logic, but rather a faith strong in its childlike trust, relying wholly on omniscient Chance and omnipotent Matter to produce the complex systems and mighty energies of the universe. The Harvard zoologist, P.D. Darlington, has penned a remarkable statement of this evolutionary faith, in his book Evolution for Naturalists. Acknowledging that the creative abilities of Matter are entirely enigmatic, he nevertheless bravely believes in them: Is not this a fine statement of faith? Even after looking down many avenues of potential evidence, Professor Darlington, more than 200 pages later, is still able to assert there is no evidence and thus his faith is still pure. The evolutionist faces a great temptation here, a serious stumblingblock to his faith. It seems utterly impossible that dead Matter could create Life. At this point, surely, he will have to defer to logic and acknowledge that Life must be produced by a Cause which is itself alive. After all, scientists long ago showed experimentally that life comes only from life. This faith in the life-generating powers of Matter glows even more brightly in light of the confessed bafflement of those scientists most familiar with the nature of life and its inexplicable naturalistic origin. One of these has said: In fact, the author of this confession, Dr. Orgel, seems at first to have wavered somewhat in his own faith. He and Dr. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the remarkably complex DNA molecule, now known to be a basic component of life and of the genetic code which controls the reproduction of all living systems, have acknowledged that life was too complex to have arisen naturalistically in the few billion years of earth history. In actuality, however, their faith is still strong, perhaps even stronger than that of other evolutionists. They believe in "directed panspermia," the amazing notion that lifeseeds were planted on earth by an unknown civilization from some other world in outer space! The mere statement of this concept is itself adequate testimony to the grand credulity of the faith of these fine evolutionists, since there exists not one iota of scientific evidence for such ethereal civilizations. Another evolutionist of bold faith is Richard Dawkins, originator and popularizer of the remarkable concept of "selfish genes", an idea which itself bespeaks an unusual type of faith. Dawkins, who is on the faculty in zoology at England's famed Oxford University, maintains an unshakeable faith in Darwinian evolution, even at the molecular level, in spite of all the modern attacks thereon by fellow evolutionists. He acknowledges, of course, that the logical thing is to believe in God. Even though it is, indeed, quite obvious that every complex and purposeful system which man has ever seen produced throughout history has been the product of an intelligent human designer, Professor Dawkins is willing to believe that life itself, far more complex than any man-made contrivance, was not designed. He dismisses God in these patronizing words: He is right, of course. It requires only a very ordinary sort of faith to explain a given effect by a cause adequate to produce the effect. Much more faith is required, an extra-ordinary faith, to believe that effects are produced by causes that are not able to produce them! To believe that non-living matter can create life, that chaotic disorder can evolve itself into organized complexity, that unthinking atoms can sort themselves into thinking human beings,—here is a worthy faith! Evolutionary faith is not limited to biologists, of course. It can be appropriated by evolutionary humanists in philosophy, in economics, in politics, in all fields. A first-rate example was Adolph Hitler, whose implicit faith in Darwinism ("the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life", as the sub-title of Darwin's Origin of Species put it) gave him the vision and courage to array his assumed "master race" against the world, believing that its triumph would be for the greater good of all mankind in its ongoing evolutionary progress. Although his armies finally went down to defeat, he still retained his great faith! Note the strong and unselfish evolutionary faith of Adolph Hitler, willing even to sacrifice his entire Teutonic "race" and finally to take his own life, to advance the cause of evolution. Finally, let us consider the remarkable faith of Isaac Asimov, the most prolific science writer of our generation. Asimov believes that our present universe began with the Big Bang of a primeval cosmic egg, whose initial explosion led to the formation of chemical elements, stars, galaxies and finally people. Now note his fine statement of faith. Now explosions commonly produce disorder and disintegration, so this greatest of all explosions must have produced the ultimate in disorder and disintegration. Evolution requires, however, that the great Bang somehow yield great order and complex structures. Dr. Asimov, therefore, believes that the primeval egg possessed an almost infinitely high degree of order, even though it had no structure. Herein we encounter Asimov's deep faith. In all normal systems with which scientists work, "structure" and "order" are essentially synonymous, equivalent also to "information," "complexity," "organization," "integration" and other such terms. If it did what evolutionists believe it did, the primeval egg certainly must have possessed a tremendous amount of organizing information and it thus seems nonsensical to say it had no structure. Asimov believes not only in run-of-the-mill impossibilities but in the equivalence of opposites ("no structure" = "high order"). However, Dr. Asimov does feel it necessary to attempt some kind of rationalization, knowing that people of lesser faith might otherwise stumble. At this point, he makes another leap of faith, proposing that the universe—instead of expanding, as he believes it is doing now—was contracting, with everything somehow in reverse and with its order increasing as it contracted. For this to be possible, of course, gravitational attraction has to be invoked to pull it together. The problem with this belief, however, is that the total mass of the matter in the universe is far too small to allow this ever to happen. Such a problem as this does not overcome the faith of an Asimov. He can handle it merely by another act of faith. Asimov's hunch, therefore, solves it all. We creationists, admittedly, find it difficult to believe all these things that evolutionists manage to believe. But we have always had a high regard for the principle of faith, even though our own faith is rather weak, based as it is on such strong evidence as almost to compel belief in the God of creation and redemption. We must, therefore, at least express admiration for the remarkable faith of the evolutionist." http://www.icr.org/article/splendid-faith-evolutionist/
  15. Whats for Supper...

    Thank you, we did. And it was good to spend time with family. Our son is still in Indiana, but he was able to video call us this evening and we were able to chat a bit. Can't wait til May when he's supposed to be moving up here. Yay! Thanks for the recipe! I'm not sure I'd like chestnuts stuffed in the turkey - I'm not crazy about stuffing from the turkey. Although I would taste it, because I do like chestnuts.
×