Jump to content
Online Baptist

DaveW

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

    4,800
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    128

Reputation Activity

  1. LOL
    DaveW got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Last one to post in this thread wins   
    Oh congrats to you then........
    Lurking around to steal the first post of the new page......... 
     

  2. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Last one to post in this thread wins   
    Plan no worky........

  3. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Last one to post in this thread wins   
    Plan no worky........

  4. Like
    DaveW reacted to Musician4God1611 in Does Anybody Have Any Music Videos That You Care To Share?   
    Ok, I can't carry all the weight by myself.
    That being said, here's something I came up with while playing for my daughter back when she was 1ish.
     
  5. Like
    DaveW reacted to Jim_Alaska in Climate change   
    The permafrost is not melting. Alaskans see no evidence of this with one exception that has always been the rule. This rule is that permafrost will  melt whenever humans expose it to direct sunlight. Other than that, the temperatures in Alaska have remained what they have always been on average.
    Even in Alaska's warm summers permafrost have never melted naturally, that's why it is called "PERMAFROST", because it is permanently frozen.
  6. LOL
    DaveW got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Put Your Bad Jokes Here...   
    Three pieces of string were wanting a cup of coffee each.
    The first one walked into the cafe and asked the barista for a cappuccino. The barista looked him up and down and said "We don't serve string here". The piece of string walked out both feeling sorry for himself.
    The second poece of string walked into the cafe and asked the barista for a flat white. The barista looked him up and down and said "We don't serve string here". The piece of string walked out both feeling dejected and suffering from coffe cravings.
    The third piece of string had watched this happen and formulated a plan. He unravelled his top and tied a half hitch in his middle, then walked into the cafe and asked for a latte. The barista looked him up and down, considered for a minute then said to "Are you a piece of string?"
    To which the third piece of string answered, "Frayed knot"..........
  7. Praying
    DaveW reacted to HappyChristian in A request for rain   
    Tragedy is widespread throughout the US right now, with the flooding and damage from Harvey and the coming damage from Irma. Then the west is burning - literally hundreds of thousands of acres (almost 100,000 in WA alone) gone. 
    We have been smoke-covered since Monday night. Thankfully, to this point, we have not had any major fires. One small one the other day, but it was quickly contained.
    But Sequim is a prairie. And so it doesn't get much rain in the summer anyway. This summer, though, we've only had rain once since May, and it wasn't much at all. We are dry. I would greatly appreciate it if you would join us in prayer for rain. It is in the forecast for tomorrow and Friday, a little, but we all know how weather forecasts go...
    Anyway, the link I've put at the end of this post is from the town paper. We've been bumped up to very high on the danger list. Clallam and Jefferson counties are where we live - we are right on the county divide.
    I am not worried. I know God is in control. I would be lying, though, if I said I wasn't at all concerned. Thank you for praying.
    http://www.sequimgazette.com/news/fire-crews-staying-put-as-local-fire-danger-increases/?utm_source=hootsuite&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialmedia
  8. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Last one to post in this thread wins   
    I don't take medicine unless it is absolutely necessary.........
  9. LOL
    DaveW got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Last one to post in this thread wins   
     ¡ɹǝpu∩ uʍop ˙˙˙˙ʍouʞ noʎ - ɐᴉlɐɹʇsn∀ ɯoɹɟ ƃuᴉʇsod ɯɐ I 'ʇǝƃɹoɟ no⅄
  10. LOL
    DaveW got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Last one to post in this thread wins   
    ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ʇɐɥM pᴉp
    ¡ǝɹǝɥ uʍop lɐɯɹou sʞool ʇI
  11. LOL
    DaveW reacted to Salyan in Last one to post in this thread wins   
    Ha… How about that… In China they really must walk on their heads. And Australia too, for that matter...
    Now if I could only dig a hole deep enough, I could see it. ;-)
  12. LOL
    DaveW reacted to No Nicolaitans in Last one to post in this thread wins   
    Uhmmm...what kind of black-magic did you use to make that face turn upside down? Probably the same kind you used to be the first on page 1003! Heresy I say!
  13. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Last one to post in this thread wins   
    I am actually beginning to wonder if BroMatt has somehow rigged it so that it doesn't do pages from here on.........
    Joke would seriously be on us then!

  14. LOL
    DaveW reacted to No Nicolaitans in Not all New items are showing?   
    My suprasyllableism was chosen before the foundation of the supraearthisism. Therefore, I am helpless to do none other to supra-accepticism it.
  15. LOL
    DaveW got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Not all New items are showing?   
    Be careful brother - that many syllables is verging on Calvinism....... 
  16. Thanks
    DaveW got a reaction from BroMatt in Not all New items are showing?   
    Just wanted to say brother - we know you are working at this as you are able, and we appreciate your work in keeping this forum available.
    We can wait patiently and muddle through until you can find a solution.
  17. Thanks
    DaveW got a reaction from BroMatt in Not all New items are showing?   
    Just wanted to say brother - we know you are working at this as you are able, and we appreciate your work in keeping this forum available.
    We can wait patiently and muddle through until you can find a solution.
  18. Like
    DaveW reacted to BroMatt in Not all New items are showing?   
    Strange things have been going on.  I'm looking into them.
  19. Praying
    DaveW reacted to No Nicolaitans in Not all New items are showing?   
    Since the latest upgrade (I suppose), I'm no longer being notified of "ALL" new posts. I look through the "Unread Content" shortcut, and go on about my business. Today, I noticed several items in bold throughout the forums that I hadn't seen before, but those items never showed up in my "Unread Content"...if that makes sense. In other words, there are things I haven't seen, but when I click on "Unread Content", those items aren't showing (or didn't show).
    It's not a big deal now that I realize what's going on...just thought I'd report it...then again, perhaps I'm just looney.
  20. Like
    DaveW reacted to No Nicolaitans in Hmmm...not being notified of new posts?   
    Since the latest upgrade (I suppose), I'm no longer being notified of "ALL" new posts. I look through the "Unread Content" shortcut, and go on about my business. Today, I noticed several items in bold throughout the forums that I hadn't seen before, but those items never showed up in my "Unread Content"...if that makes sense. In other words, there are things I haven't seen, but when I click on "Unread Content", those items aren't showing (or didn't show).
    It's not a big deal now that I realize what's going on...just thought I'd report it...then again, perhaps I'm just looney.
  21. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from HappyChristian in Does Anybody Have Any Music Videos That You Care To Share?   
    Here is an audio file of me doing a song I found. The Guitar is a Fenix 12, basic fingerpicking, two voices.
    Assuming the attachment thingy works.... 
    God's been good_harmony.mp3
    Folks, a quick warning - link downloads on my phone instead of playing. I don't know what it does on pc, but you most likely don't want my droning permanently on your device......
  22. Like
    DaveW reacted to Musician4God1611 in The Husband of One Wife   
    I think that maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. I'm not saying that divorce doesn't matter, I'm saying that divorce doesn't make you the husband of more than one wife in anyone's eyes, remarriage does. Let me give you an example: A man gets married and divorced when he is lost, but he doesn't get remarried. He gets saved and says he's called to Pastor. He isn't the husband of more than one wife, because he never remarried. Now whether that divorce disqualifies him or not is a totally different subject, but he isn't the husband of more than one wife.
  23. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from Roselove in Early church eternal security   
    Just want to add a couple of things.
    The Manna is used as an illustration to us - illustrations never teach a new truth, they only support a truth. By this I mean in this instance, the Manna is used as an example for us, but NEVER in the way you are proposing.
    In fact, the manna is used in reference to Jesus as the bread, but it is used as follows:
    John 6:31-35
    (31)  Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
    (32)  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
    (33)  For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
    (34)  Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
    (35)  And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
     
    You see, in this passage we are shown that Jesus is the "True bread" - the point is not that the manna had to be continually gathered, but that the manna gave them life.
    This is further understood when Jesus says in vs 35 "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger".
    Jesus actually makes the point that the difference between Him and the Manna is that men hungered after eating the Manna, but after accepting Him they will NEVER HUNGER.
    You see, the teaching of the illustration about Manna SUPPORTS the doctrine of eternal security.
    So you can happily strike the Manna argument off the list.
     
     
    Secondly, one of my favourite passages talks about signs and experiences: 2 Peter 1:19-21
    (19)  We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
    (20)  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
    (21)  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
     
    This is talking about the fact that the Word of God came from God, not from men.
    It is called here a "More Sure" word of prophecy.
    Have you ever wondered what it is "more sure" than?
    You only have to look in the preceding verses:
    2 Peter 1:16-18
    (16)  For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
    (17)  For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
    (18)  And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
     
    Note here that Paul says they were "eyewitnesses of His majesty". Then in the next two verses Peter describes the event he is talking about.
    The Father speaks and says "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased", and at the end of vs 18 it says "when we were with Him in the holy mount"
     This is talking about what we call "the Transfiguration of Christ" and it is recorded in Matt 17:2-9; Mark 9:2-9; and Luke 9:28-36.
    The most amazing thing to me about this is that Peter, James, and John saw the Lord transformed into His glorified body and standing there with Moses and Elijah on top of the Holy Mount, and Peter in the chapter above says that we have a "more Sure" Word of God than even this incredible experience that they genuinely did experience.
    The Written Word of God is more sure, more reliable, more trustworthy than even the things you see with your own eyes, and the things you experience in this life.
    Make no mistake - Peter really did see these things happen when he and James and John went onto the mountaintop with the Lord, but Peter (speaking under the influence of the Holy Ghost) said the Word of God was even more sure than that.
    If the Word of God was more sure than that certain experience, then the Word of God is more sure than anything you or I might experience, see, hear, feel, or otherwise perceive.
     
    Trust the Word of God: It is true in all it says.
    Psalms 119:160
    (160)  Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
     
     
  24. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from Musician4God1611 in The Husband of One Wife   
    I normally don't get involved in these, simply because it ends up being a slapping match between opposing thoughts, however, I will offer a few gentle points.
    (And I am unlikely to "defend" them or enter into discussion about them.)
    Matthew 5:31-32
    (31)  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.

    The Law is vs 31, the Lord's restating is vs 32 - note that in this brief saying it is plain that there is only one ground for divorce, and the divorced "WOMAN" is an adulterer if she remarries. Note also that the woman is an adulterer if she remarries EVEN IF the divorce fits under the "saving for the cause" phrase.
    I might be inferred from this that it applies equally to men, but that is an assumption. the reader will decide if it is a reasonable assumption.
    Matthew 19:3-9
    (3)  The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
    (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.
    (7)  They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
    (8)  He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
    (9)  And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
     
    I will note regarding this passage that the Lord first states the plan for marriage, and concludes that in vs 6, stating quite clearly that "what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
    He then finishes His statement. This is God's plan for marriage in its entirety - it should not be broken. Argue all you like against it, but that is what it says. 
    The Pharisees then press Him further with regard to the idea that Moses commanded divorce. Note here that Jesus specifically uses the term "suffered" in this instance, NOT commanded, but probably the MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS PASSAGE is that it was "suffered" for the hardness of their hearts. If a man is willing to admit that he has hardened his heart against God, then divorce is allowed, BUT EVEN THEN under specific circumstances: fornication.
    This is a repeat of the previous, however this time is DOES INDEED refer to the man as an adulterer if he then remarries, except for fornication.
    (A side note: In my studies I have not found a place where God COMMANDED divorce. Look carefully before throwing up suggestions. I could be wrong, but so far.....)
    1 Corinthians 7:10-16
    (10)  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.
    (12)  But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
    (13)  And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
    (14)  For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
    (15)  But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
    (16)  For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
    A wife shouldn't divorce her husband - if she does, she should not remarry. Again, it does not specifically list the converse (husband leaving wife) - the reader will have to consider whether it is reasonable to apply it to husbands as well.
    A saved man married to an unsaved woman, shall not divorce his wife. 
    A saved woman married to an unsaved man, shall not divorce her husband.
    BUT IF THE UNBELIEVER wants a divorce, then let him (or her) - the saved one "is not under bondage in such cases".
     
    Now then, to the Question at hand:
    Aside from the matter of fornication, and that allowed (NOT commanded), if a man divorces his wife for any reason, it is not a valid divorce in God's eyes. He clearly stated "what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
    Therefore, according to the statement of God, that man IS STILL MARRIED, for it is not a legitimate divorce. In my reading, the "exception clause" was given for those who were hard hearted, and such a man (if still hard hearted) is not really qualified anyway.
    The ONLY case where it clearly sets this aside is where a believer has no part in the divorce other than to let it happen.
    This is the only place where we see it CLEARLY stated that he is not under bondage.
    In light of these, the "husband of one wife" statement is not so much about how that phrase is understood, as it is about whether it is a legitimate divorce in God's eyes.
    If it is not, and the man has divorced wrongly, and then remarried, in God's eyes he has two wives, and is therefore ineligible. 
     
     
  25. Like
    DaveW got a reaction from Roselove in Early church eternal security   
    Just want to add a couple of things.
    The Manna is used as an illustration to us - illustrations never teach a new truth, they only support a truth. By this I mean in this instance, the Manna is used as an example for us, but NEVER in the way you are proposing.
    In fact, the manna is used in reference to Jesus as the bread, but it is used as follows:
    John 6:31-35
    (31)  Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
    (32)  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
    (33)  For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
    (34)  Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
    (35)  And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
     
    You see, in this passage we are shown that Jesus is the "True bread" - the point is not that the manna had to be continually gathered, but that the manna gave them life.
    This is further understood when Jesus says in vs 35 "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger".
    Jesus actually makes the point that the difference between Him and the Manna is that men hungered after eating the Manna, but after accepting Him they will NEVER HUNGER.
    You see, the teaching of the illustration about Manna SUPPORTS the doctrine of eternal security.
    So you can happily strike the Manna argument off the list.
     
     
    Secondly, one of my favourite passages talks about signs and experiences: 2 Peter 1:19-21
    (19)  We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
    (20)  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
    (21)  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
     
    This is talking about the fact that the Word of God came from God, not from men.
    It is called here a "More Sure" word of prophecy.
    Have you ever wondered what it is "more sure" than?
    You only have to look in the preceding verses:
    2 Peter 1:16-18
    (16)  For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
    (17)  For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
    (18)  And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
     
    Note here that Paul says they were "eyewitnesses of His majesty". Then in the next two verses Peter describes the event he is talking about.
    The Father speaks and says "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased", and at the end of vs 18 it says "when we were with Him in the holy mount"
     This is talking about what we call "the Transfiguration of Christ" and it is recorded in Matt 17:2-9; Mark 9:2-9; and Luke 9:28-36.
    The most amazing thing to me about this is that Peter, James, and John saw the Lord transformed into His glorified body and standing there with Moses and Elijah on top of the Holy Mount, and Peter in the chapter above says that we have a "more Sure" Word of God than even this incredible experience that they genuinely did experience.
    The Written Word of God is more sure, more reliable, more trustworthy than even the things you see with your own eyes, and the things you experience in this life.
    Make no mistake - Peter really did see these things happen when he and James and John went onto the mountaintop with the Lord, but Peter (speaking under the influence of the Holy Ghost) said the Word of God was even more sure than that.
    If the Word of God was more sure than that certain experience, then the Word of God is more sure than anything you or I might experience, see, hear, feel, or otherwise perceive.
     
    Trust the Word of God: It is true in all it says.
    Psalms 119:160
    (160)  Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
     
     
×