DaveW

*Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

    4,175
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About DaveW

  • Rank
    Resident Aussie and general dumb bloke
  • Birthday 09/30/1968

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    I'm a West Aussie
  • Are you IFB?
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

9,539 profile views
  1. It was too much to do an exhaustive from my phone, which is why I posted what I did.
  2. Oh very very good....... And I needed that laugh today.....
  3. I must point out that the specific phrase "body of Christ" occurs only four times in the KJV. Twice it refers to the actual physical body of Jesus Christ, and the other two times it is distinctively and directly reated to the local church. The specific phrase "body of Christ" should only ever be used to refer to a local church. The term "body" is not as cut and dried although it is my opinion (note - OPINION) that it also is applicable primarily to local churches. Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. 1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion ofthe blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 1Co 12:27 Now ye are the body ofChrist, and members in particular. Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Note: the phrase "body of Jesus Christ also appears once, in reference to His physical body. Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Just sayin'...........
  4. Ummm...... I thought this was about a preacher who is refusing to bow to an immoral law. So far most of this has been about taking money from the government or about the election. I think this guy is making a great stand, and we should be praying for his strength and protection.
  5. Not about blowing bubbles, but it might be ok to like bubbles..... Ezr 5:2 Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them. This "bubble" (Zerubbabel) began to build the temple, so there is definitely something to like about Him. I like driving. Show me that in the Bible!
  6. Finally reloaded my photo.

    Different photo of the mighty cruiser.

    Background is sunrise over Cocklebiddy, approximately 400km from any place that anyone cares about, where I spent five days with a not so mighty cruiser..........

  7. I wasn't trying to apply the law to any church or Christian, only pointing out that verses like this indicate that God loves music when used in worship of him, both with instruments and also with dedicated singers. Those people who say instruments should not be used and choirs should not be used are ignoring clear Biblical principle.
  8. God loves music played on instruments in worship of Him, and he loves it when people sing before the congregation in worship of Him. Psa 33:2 Praise the LORD with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings. Psa 68:25 The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were the damsels playing with timbrels.
  9. Yes they are Australian. I have met and spoken with Brother Graham on several occasions and my sister knew him and his wife very well. I know his son James by correspondence only. I don't feel it is beneficial to discuss the matter in detail, but the warning in general is legitimate, and is applicable to any subject. I have Brother Graham's videos.
  10. I knew Graham West and respect him, but his son (and he before he died) has placed so much emphasis on music that it has overtaken all else in that ministry. I respect his teaching on music, but when a ministry becomes unbalanced it becomes unprofitable (spiritually of course, not talking about monetary profit....)
  11. Linux developers are a funny lot - they like to use looping references in their names. For instance "Wine" is an acronym for "Wine is not an emulator", and technically it isn't (apparently ), but to you and me it is an emulator and it is called wine...........
  12. I would probably take two things into account: Is there opportunity to influence closer to the Lord. If yes, then it may be worth staying with that as your primary goal. If no, then you really have to consider the next point. How is your own conscience about the matter? 1 Cor ch 8 and ch 10 both talk about a man's conscience, and 1 Tim 4:2 talks about the danger of a seared conscience. If your own conscience is causing you trouble over it...... Those two things - is there possibility to bring them closer to the Lord, and are you in danger of searing your conscience? Only you really know these answers.
  13. ummm so what? Can you state categorically in Mike's case that this particular sin is the cause of that church's struggles? And by the way the discussion has moved to whether or not it IS sin. The use of this verse in this way seems a little bit like bully tactics. My point is that not one of us can categorically state that it is a direct result with any sort of authority. The principle of the verse is absolutely true, but the application of it in this particular case seems a bit mean spirited. By all means put it as a possibility, but that is not how he phrased it.
  14. I think you should remove this. There is no way that you can attribute the position of that church to this issue. There are too many other factors. Noah's ministry was small but it was not due to his sin. Job faced many struggles but it was because he was upright. I don't think you can speak for God in this way. The verse is a true statement, but to link it in such a definitive way...........
  15. Same-sex marriage is being debated in the Australian Parliament right now. Some background: In the last federal election, our conservative party (called the Liberal Party) proposed during that campaign that they would have a "plebiscite vote" on whether Australia should allow same sex marriage. A Plebiscite is an individual vote by each registered citizen on a particular issue. The conservative party said they would put this matter to a full individual public vote. The Labor Party (our progressive party not unlike the US Democrats) are refusing to vote for it, and the party split and independents will not allow our conservative party to pass the bill to allow the "plebiscite" without support from either the Labor party or a number of the independents. Now remembering that the Liberal party won the right to govern with this plebiscite as part of their election platform, and this is the most democratic mechanism available to the Australian electorate, what right has the opposition party and the independents to refuse it? Even moreso, the opposition parties and independents are pushing for a vote in the parliament only - in other words, they don't want every individual person to vote on this matter but only the representatives. The thing that is making it even worse is that they are saying that the reason they won't allow it is that it will damage the normal democratic mechanism and people will want to vote on every little thing. This though is a smokescreen, because the division on the plebiscite is quite clearly along pro-anti-same sex marriage lines. Those for same sex marriage don't want a full democratic public vote, and those against it do want a full democratic public vote. So obviously the real matter is not about the democratic system being damaged, but in fact it is because those who re pro-same sex marriage are desperately worried that the general public will not approve of same sex marriage, and if they can possibly keep it out of the hands of the public they will be able to bully it through parliament.