Jump to content
Online Baptist

DaveW

*Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

    4,756
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    122

DaveW last won the day on August 10

DaveW had the most liked content!

2 Followers

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

12,589 profile views
  1. Born Of God

    Why post the same thing twice? People will think you are spamming......
  2. Last one to post in this thread wins

    A bit scary isn't it........
  3. Last one to post in this thread wins

    I has been tried here before, but usually another mod comes along later and unlocks it again, so it is still only a temporary win...... Like this post, which currently has me winning. And if you post, lock and then delete the thread, only you will have the knowledge of your being the winner - the rest of us will just wonder what happened to the thread........
  4. Way of Life:King James Only

    I also have no disagreement here.
  5. Refuting Verses of TULIP belief

    Unfortunately, I have. A young man was convinced by another guy that Calvinism was true, but since he still suffered under the burden of sin, he also became concinced that he was not part of the elect. Since he was not, there was no hope for him, and he stopped following the Lord at all. Calvinism is a dangerous heresy.
  6. Refuting Verses of TULIP belief

    Not in the way that Calvin and the followers of THAT MAN (as opposed to followers of the Bible) describe it. You obviously don't know what they teach or you wouldn't even ask it.
  7. Refuting Verses of TULIP belief

    But it is also not biblical. Thought up by a philosopher and developed and written down by a lawyer, neither whom were actually saved, what would you expect.
  8. Climate change

    Personally, I am not convinced that oil is non-renewable. They have found coal seams with "produced items" such as hats etc embedded in them, indicating that the particular coal deposits formed since that item was made, and "lost" in whatever it was that the coal was formed from, and there is an intrinsic link between coal and oil. So I think there are indicators that more oil is being formed all the time - but I am not an expert, and have done very little research on that particular topic. What I do know, is that they turn the oil flow up and down according to how much money they want to make and how quickly they want to make it. To "scare" everybody into thinking that oil is becoming scarce only really results in them being able to pump up the prices and rip us off harder. Just my thoughts.....
  9. Currently marriage in Australia is defined as between a man and a woman. There is about to be a "Postal Plebiscite" to decide if ti stays that way. This is going to happen basically because the current ruling party wanted a compulsory attendance plebiscite (referendum basically), but couldn't get enough votes in the parliament to do so. The main opposition parties want a vote in parliament by the representatives. Remember that I am not talking about the US, but Australia, and a true plebiscite vote is not only legal, but the highest expression of democracy available in Australia, where each and every eligible person can vote on a particular issue. As a result, the government will do a postal vote on the matter. Now then - the reason the opposition parties wanted a parliamentary vote only is that it is easier to convince, bribe, bully, otherwise influence, a small number of politicians than it is to get the whole of the Australian public to follow their line. In a full vote, the majority of Australians will probably vote against the change. In fact, the majority of Australians don't really care either way whether there is "marriage equality" as they put it, but if you tell them they have to vote one way or the other, the likelihood is that that indifferent majority will vote against - simply because Australians don't like being told what to do......... But in a postal vote, that indifferent majority will "forget" to vote - this makes it almost as bad as a parliamentary vote, because you can be sure that those wanting the change will be out in force, and making sure that everyone on their side votes at least once....... (One vote is all that's allowed by the way, but we all know...) I would like to ask that people pray for Australia over the next month or so about this issue. I believe that the postal vote material will begin to arrive around the middle of September, but I am not sure when the votes have to be returned by. To put a little perspective, there are already civil unions available to ANY couple, which give full legal recognition to those couples which is recognised at all levels of government and law, so all that is really being sought is the right to call them "Marriages". I have done some research, and even the world does not have a recognised beginning to marriage, and cannot therefore trace it back to any secular beginning. The Bible however states that God is the author of marriage, and as such God should be able to define what marriage is - and has: Matthew 19:4-6 (4) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Please pray that this change does not come in - it will gain nothing for those couples, but will open the door to the total destruction of the biblical family, and in fact, may very possible destroy free speech in Australia, and take away the freedom to preach the Bible. It has become plain to me that this is not about marriage and rights, but it is an attack on God's Word, and on the freedom to proclaim the Gospel.
  10. Question about looking for a local church...

    No no - not a pointless question - a pointless argument. And my answer to the question is that the more important thing, rather than the history of the church is where that church is right now. A church could have a great history (as far as can be established), but may very possibly be right out in left field doctrinally. Another church could have a "Shady past" (if you will), but might now be solid in doctrine. The choice is obvious.
  11. Starting a church

    I understand the point, but whenever we can see a church being started in the Bible, we see it being started by one sent from another church. This is the biblical principle, and we should follow it. But for existing churches, far more important is where they now stand.
  12. Question about looking for a local church...

    Wr have a lady at our church currently who many years ago was saved in a congregational church. Then some time later, the pastor there anniunced to the church that he had been doing some serious study and realised that they were not bibical for many reasons - he spent some time talking with a local baptist pastor, and this church decided that about half of them would fo for a special meeting at the Baptist church and get baptised properly, then they began a new church. The other half stayed at the old Congregational church, having rejected the Pastor's new path. By studying his Binle he came to the conclusion that they needed to be baptised with proper authority and sought out someone who he belived had that authority. But the reason they "started a new church" was because there were some who would not follow this path, and he did not feel it was right to force them out considering it was his change, not theirs. I personally think the argument over the history of it is a pointless argument - the process a church should use today is clear in the Bible: churches are started under proper authority, and that authority rests in the church sending the man. There are some who say that you must be able to prove full lineage, but I have never met any man who can do so - it becomes an intellectual argument only, and therefore nigh on useless..... words to no profit, one might say.
  13. Starting a church

    Isn't that the same thing really? You arr talking about being sent - having the authority from the sending church to start another work?
  14. Is a home church a biblical church?

    Yep, as I and I think Pastor J said, the place is irrelevant. A church can meet in a home or another building. What makes the difference is the doctrine. The "Home church movement" is a doctrinally incorrect group, but that has nothing to do with meeting in homes and everything to do with their doctrine.
×