Jump to content

Photo

What About Our 'own' Convictions?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
152 replies to this topic

#21 Standing Firm In Christ

Standing Firm In Christ

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,177 posts
1,224
Excellent
  • LocationSee Bio

Posted 26 June 2014 - 08:14 PM

Water baptism?  Full immersion.  The word baptidzo means to immerse.  Pouring water over someone is not immersion.    The very definition of the word reveals it is immersion.  Pouring and springking are both false doctrine.



#22 Arbo

Arbo

    Unwelcome, so Done.

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts
320
Excellent

Posted 26 June 2014 - 08:14 PM


In my view, anyone who is not in agreement with the board basics should not be allowed to run teaching threads - and yet it happens here.
Take part in discussions? Sure.
But not to lead a study thread.

 

 

I have had a few here tell me that I ought not participate on this site because I do not consider myself IFB, though I generally avoid getting involved in theological discussions.  

 

Frankly, it still leaves a bitter taste.



#23 DaveW

DaveW

    Resident Aussie and general dumb bloke

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,463 posts
1,990
Excellent
  • LocationI'm a West Aussie

Posted 26 June 2014 - 08:34 PM

I have had a few here tell me that I ought not participate on this site because I do not consider myself IFB, though I generally avoid getting involved in theological discussions.

Frankly, it still leaves a bitter taste.


I have no problem with ANYONE who is willing to discuss, but in my opinion the IFB section should be for IFB only - that is what it says in the title for the Section. ......

The rest is open forum - BUT non-IFB should not be leading studies at all on this site.
Participation by anyone is fine, but as soon as someone begins to lead a study when they don't hold to the board basics is the time to put a stop to them.
participation and leading/teaching are two different things.

And GP - yes I was speaking of you in that section of the quote, particularly in relation to bible versions.

#24 AVBibleBeliever

AVBibleBeliever

    A True AV Bible Believer

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,339 posts
288
Excellent
  • LocationCentral Virginia

Posted 26 June 2014 - 08:36 PM

I have had a few here tell me that I ought not participate on this site because I do not consider myself IFB, though I generally avoid getting involved in theological discussions.  

 

Frankly, it still leaves a bitter taste.

That has been said to me as well.

 

I don't consider myself by titles, identification or association though the world will know you by your associates and looks and considers men by titles and positions.  But I am of the Body of Christ and so are you and everyone here (I hope) that is my only true identification or title.

 

As I read through 1 Peter when I got home from work (I didn't have time this morning as I had to cut off my pm with happy and get to work) but as I read the first 8 verses a lot of things stuck out.  Though the context was about believing wives and husbands and their conversations with them, the fact that God's word says that without a word the unbeliever would be won to Christ by their conversation really struck home.  Many men would not even let that verse come near as it is about a believing wife (woman), but generically applicable, will my life, words and actions win someone to Christ without a word? 

 

That is what I thought on this evening.  You talk about a wordless Gospel this is it.  I am still meditating on the chapter and it has new meaning to me as I read it.  (I have read it well over fifty times in the last 19 years).  The more I give myself to God's word through total belief that every word is true and has importance the more I learn.

 

So just hang in there we all get the negative stuff but sometimes a blessing comes through it too.


Edited by AVBibleBeliever, 26 June 2014 - 08:39 PM.


#25 Steve Schwenke

Steve Schwenke

    Bible Believing Baptist Preacher

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 764 posts
830
Excellent
  • LocationAmarillo, TX

Posted 26 June 2014 - 09:16 PM

AVBibleBeliever

Thank you for your kind words.  I appreciate it.  I am often ashamed of how I have reacted in the past, and sometimes, it still slips out. 

One of the reasons I continue to participate in forums like this one is for my own personal growth. 

 

Can't tell you how much I appreciate what you said.  It means a lot to me.

 

In Christ,



#26 Arbo

Arbo

    Unwelcome, so Done.

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts
320
Excellent

Posted 26 June 2014 - 09:53 PM

I have no problem with ANYONE who is willing to discuss, but in my opinion the IFB section should be for IFB only - that is what it says in the title for the Section. ......


Agree. The site has provisions intended to make it what the owners desire it to be. Unfortunately, some are not happy with the IFB section and think that it ought to be made site-wide. They want those of us who have differing opinions out.


 

The rest is open forum - BUT non-IFB should not be leading studies at all on this site.
Participation by anyone is fine, but as soon as someone begins to lead a study when they don't hold to the board basics is the time to put a stop to them.
participation and leading/teaching are two different things.


Again, I agree. It goes to simple respect of the rules of participation.

Edited by Arbo, 26 June 2014 - 09:55 PM.


#27 Covenanter

Covenanter

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,074 posts
493
Excellent
  • LocationSouthall, West London, England

Posted 27 June 2014 - 07:58 AM

Wrong, AVBB.

Either there is a gap, or there is not a gap.  Both cannot be truth.  And the one that is not true... is false.

 

 

Water baptism?  Full immersion.  The word baptidzo means to immerse.  Pouring water over someone is not immersion.    The very definition of the word reveals it is immersion.  Pouring and springking are both false doctrine.

The problem is, the translators of the KJV were all infant baptists, teaching immersion of the baby unless it was sickly when sprinkling was permitted a valid baptism. AFAIK what they believed about a gap is not recorded in the 39 Articles which was their agreed standard.

 

Can we trust the translators who obviously didn't understand their own translation in the IFB way?

 

Yes, we can trust a faithful translation, guided by the Holy Spirit, but who on this forum writes in the power & wisdom of the Holy Spirit? We do write with God-given wisdom, but also we disagree on matters of interpretation. Does disagreement amount to error, making one a false teacher. I think not.

 

What makes a false teacher is one who preaches "another gospel" - another way of salvation not centred on LORD Jesus Christ & his atoning sacrifice, crucified & risen, as our covenant representative & substitute. That leads on to questions of the God/man nature of Jesus, what he taught regarding the kingdom of God, being born again - of water & the Spirit. I hope we agree on the answers to those questions.

 

Where we disagree is when we use a paradigm - interpretation system - to understand the Scriptures. Is dispensationalism, or covenant theology, or "IFBism," etc, the correct way of interpretation? Does over-reliance on our paradigm lead to conclusions not supported by the Scripture we are interpreting? And do different paradigms lead to serious error? And if YOU use a different paradigm to ME, is one of us necessarily a false teacher. 

 

I respect those who use Scripture to challenge my teaching, but not those who stick a label on me & reject ME because of the connotations they attach to that label. [e.g. Covenant theology = replacement theology.]



#28 Standing Firm In Christ

Standing Firm In Christ

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,177 posts
1,224
Excellent
  • LocationSee Bio

Posted 27 June 2014 - 08:14 AM

Sorry, Covenanter.  But your doctrine of Preterism is a false doctrine. You are a teacher of that false doctrine.  Therefore, you are a false teacher.



#29 DaveW

DaveW

    Resident Aussie and general dumb bloke

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,463 posts
1,990
Excellent
  • LocationI'm a West Aussie

Posted 27 June 2014 - 09:25 AM

And on the 70 weeks thread where I used ONLY the passage in Daniel and you and at least one other used all sorts of stuff, who was relying on Scripture and who was relying too much on a system?

False teaching comes from systems - if you follow a system why does it offend you that people label you by the system you use - even after you name yourself by that system?

On eschatology you teach false.
You appear to support infant baptism, which is false.
There are things you appear to teach which are false.
Yet you cry about being labeled, when you label yourself and then deny what that system teaches, but teach what that system teaches...........

You label yourself, by your name and by what you teach on this forum.

And what you teach is not only against God's Word but it is CLEARLY AGAINST THE STATED POSITION Of THIS FORUM.

Two strikes against you in this place......

#30 AVBibleBeliever

AVBibleBeliever

    A True AV Bible Believer

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,339 posts
288
Excellent
  • LocationCentral Virginia

Posted 27 June 2014 - 09:26 AM

Stanfirm, I still have you on my ignore list.  and if it weren't for covenater I would never had seen your post or part of it.

 

MHO is you have to run to the Greek to get the Meaning and give no study to how God defines a word in the English.

 

If you had read the T's and Y's article by dave reese I posted you would know that the English used in it was 1) not common and 2) the English Language developed with it's Bible just like theHebrew language. 

 

But if you have to run to such unreliable sources as Greek Dictionary's with their confused meanings of Classical Greek imposed on Koine Greek, which are two different Greek languages, then you are limiting you understanding to the work of other men and not you own work of study in the English KJV you hold in your hand.  If you go to the Greek dictionary (other men's works and systems are in these as well) you will do 1) remove the word from context, 2) add a meaning from outside source, 3) force the word back into the scriptures with the greek meaning thereby creating a pretextual study instead of a contextual study.

 

Either throw out the KJV and learn Koine Greek, good luck with that it has been a dead language for well over 1,000 years, not even the best in 1611 had full knowledge on how it was spoke and had the meanings they had to rely on others and the Holy Ghost. 

 

My Point is you take one word from the context and run to the Greek while ignoring the surrounding context of the whole KJ Bible.  If kept in context and going to all the words of Baptizo you will find that the process of Spiritual Baptism is said to "Pour out the gift of the Holy Ghost" as described by Peter not immersed.  We know this is the act of baptism is of the Holy Ghost for Gentile believers and it is said God poured it out not immersed.  in Eph 4 where the one baptism is mentioned is not water baptism but Spirit Baptism into Christ.  Which Peter said it was done by God and that he Poured it out.  and it was the baptism Peter got not from John but from Jesus when he said they would be baptised of the Holy Ghost and not one of them was immersed.  Peter said that it was God who Poured it out on  the Gentiles just like he had done to the 11 in Acts 2.

 

the baptism the two disciple said they could be baptized with was crucifixion and indeed they were crucified later however that baptism was not immersion either it was crucifixion.

 

My point is not every use of the English Baptize is Immersion.  and if God poured out his Spirit on us this could indicate how John Baptized.  People walked down into the water and he poured water over their heads.  There is not indication that John Immersed anyone for the Bible is silent on the procedure.  Not only that, Baptizo may have more that one meaning, immersion , being one of themas we had shown in the English KJV context.  But just because the dictionary guys decided to not give all the meanings doesn't mean it is limited to immerse again the context helps define the English word.

 

I like the immersion personally because I like to hold them down long enough that when I let them up they are speaking in tongues. 

 

Just kidding

 

I use the standard buried in his likeness and raised in newness of life from Romans 6, even though there is no water any direction for 20 verses of Paul's writing in Romans 6, but it makes for a nice formula representing our Identification with Christ's Cross, death and life.

 

Stop running to the Greek, you don't know how to speak Koine Greek and truthfully neither do the Greek professors in the Universities.  You speak English Learn it in the English first and keep the context to understand the meaning.


Edited by AVBibleBeliever, 27 June 2014 - 08:10 PM.


#31 AVBibleBeliever

AVBibleBeliever

    A True AV Bible Believer

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,339 posts
288
Excellent
  • LocationCentral Virginia

Posted 27 June 2014 - 09:46 AM

We do need to be careful in calling their system false.  Are not you the one who was saying that ONLY those who are by your standard and IFB should lead a study.  Here is your opportunity to put your fingers where you mouth is and lead them by study as a bonafide IFB minister.

 

I am not saying they are correct but lead them through a study on the topic and then show them it could not have included infants.  If you can't come to the conclusion or it is silent has God not allowed for correcting by his Holy Ghost?  Or is it up to us to just label their doctrine false, heresies and a slue of other titles to which we wipe our hands clean and walk off?

 

Ok, so take the baptism verses in the gospels where John is baptizing and show that "ALL Judea and ALL the region of the Jordon coming to him for baptism" did not include infants.

 

Then use the one in Acts 16 and show by contextual study the "was baptized, he and all his, straightway." that the "ALL his" included or did not include babies and why it could not have included babies. 

 

Would not this be a better way of admonition than a scathing rebuke labeling their practice (that does not affect their salvation in one ioda) false, heresy or any other label you would choose to use? 

 

One request don't go to the Greek use the English to prove your point,.  Going to the Greek will not help (it generally singles out a single word from the context and attributes the meaning of a doctrine from the man or his organization) this will only confuse and cloud the issue, we are not Koine Greek speaking we are English speaking.


Edited by AVBibleBeliever, 27 June 2014 - 09:47 AM.


#32 Standing Firm In Christ

Standing Firm In Christ

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,177 posts
1,224
Excellent
  • LocationSee Bio

Posted 27 June 2014 - 01:15 PM

Baptizing is not pouring out.  It is immersion.  Pouring out is translated from the Greek "excheo".  Ekcheo is never used in regards to water baptism in the original autographs.

And whether you like it or not, sometimes it is important to go to the Greek and Hebrew. 



#33 Covenanter

Covenanter

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,074 posts
493
Excellent
  • LocationSouthall, West London, England

Posted 27 June 2014 - 02:35 PM

Baptizing is not pouring out.  It is immersion.  Pouring out is translated from the Greek "excheo".  Ekcheo is never used in regards to water baptism in the original autographs.

And whether you like it or not, sometimes it is important to go to the Greek and Hebrew. 

It's possible that the KJV translators went to the Gk & Hebrew, & their understanding of baptism was different from yours. You might like to look at they way they translated the various words relating to baptism.

 

And how did you get access to the original autographs?



#34 Standing Firm In Christ

Standing Firm In Christ

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,177 posts
1,224
Excellent
  • LocationSee Bio

Posted 27 June 2014 - 03:04 PM

We don't have the originals, but we have copies of the originals... apographs.   All the Greek and Hebrews words in the originals, copied. 

 



#35 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 18,032 posts
2,056
Excellent

Posted 27 June 2014 - 03:26 PM

Apograph - new word for me, SFIC. Thanks.  :icon_smile:



#36 heartstrings

heartstrings

    He shall feed his flock like a shepherd....

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,366 posts
1,182
Excellent

Posted 27 June 2014 - 03:36 PM

I posted this in a previous thread... what do you think?

 

"Here we go, bashing someone else's beliefs on 'what' the scriptures plainly teach from a believers own view.

Are we not aloud to believe our own 'convictions'? ''believing'' your own convictions is one thing; voicing them is another

 

It scares me how Scwenke can be so 'clear' in what he says, (and be wrong 'from my perspective'), and he is aloud to

be a 'believer'; yet someone else can be a 'false teacher' by also believing the scriptures 'clearly'. Scwenke is IFB, KJB and this a KJB, IFB forum

 

The road does go both ways. Both use the same 'road', yet only one can be right.

But does one being 'right', cancel out what the other guy believes from his own experience in Bible study, and that for years of study?

 

How is it that two diverse fella's, both with years of reading and studying the scriptures, come up with different views of the scriptures, and

disagree with eachother, how can they say to eachother, you are a false teacher?

 

Doesn't it have to do with experience, spiritually with the Lord? How can you call one's convictions that he learned from God in his own relationship, wrong doctrine.

Probably with these words - 'you are not understanding what God is saying here...'.

 

We have the mind of Christ. 

 

Any thoughts?

 

Maybe a new thread."

 

 

 

Anything anyone? Do we 'have' to agree?

I've been an IFB for some 28 years but have been out of my 'element' much as you are, here on this forum, because I have been attending a SBC for 3 years. During those 3 years, I still don't like the rock music, the pants on women, the men in shorts with 'necklaces', the tobacco chewing, the MV's and some of the other things that SBC  folks do. But though we still try to 'live right, dress right and spit white', we don't try to impose our beliefs on the SBC's because, again, I feel out of my element there. But here, on this IFB forum, I can still voice such things as that the King James Bible (not 'version') is God's pure, holy, inerrant, unadulterated Word for English Speaking people and that the others are corrupted and false, that Jesus Christ is coming back in the clouds pre-millennially, that Israel has not been 'replaced', and that Calvinism is lie and a slander against the name of the Lord Jesus Christ: because this is an IFB forum; not a ''Geneva bible'' forum. Why are you here: to learn or to sway others to your doctrine?



#37 Standing Firm In Christ

Standing Firm In Christ

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,177 posts
1,224
Excellent
  • LocationSee Bio

Posted 27 June 2014 - 03:46 PM

Apograph - new word for me, SFIC. Thanks.  :icon_smile:

Webster's 1828 Dictionary [A-J]
apograph

AP'OGRAPH n. Gr. An exemplar; a copy or transcript.



#38 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 18,032 posts
2,056
Excellent

Posted 27 June 2014 - 03:49 PM

Webster's 1828 Dictionary [A-J]
apograph

AP'OGRAPH n. Gr. An exemplar; a copy or transcript.

Thanks, I looked it up to see if I was right in the meaning - I was (college Greek comes in handy at times :clapping: ).  I love learning new words.  Even if I am pathetic...



#39 Standing Firm In Christ

Standing Firm In Christ

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,177 posts
1,224
Excellent
  • LocationSee Bio

Posted 27 June 2014 - 03:53 PM

The point is, while it is not the original papyrus that we have, we do have the original words written on other media.  And there is nothing wrong with going to the original languages to see how a particular word was used.

Words change meanings all the time.  Up until the 19th Century, wine was generic in our language.  Up until the mid-20th, gay did not mean a sodomite. 

When one sees "gay clothing in the Bible, if the language of today dictates that gay always refers to one who is a sodomite, it could easily be misconstrued to mean James was speaking of sodomites attire.

So, there is absolutely nothing wrong with looking to the original meaning of words written in the Bible.



#40 Genevanpreacher

Genevanpreacher

    Seeker of God's Wisdom

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts
287
Excellent
  • LocationIndiana, USA

Posted 27 June 2014 - 04:03 PM

But here, on this IFB forum, I can still voice such things as that the King James Bible (not 'version') is God's pure, holy, inerrant, unadulterated Word for English Speaking people and that the others are corrupted and false, that Jesus Christ is coming back in the clouds pre-millennially, that Israel has not been 'replaced', and that Calvinism is lie and a slander against the name of the Lord Jesus Christ: because this is an IFB forum; not a ''Geneva bible'' forum. Why are you here: to learn or to sway others to your doctrine?

 

I feel you are right about the KJV, that it is the KJB, when comparing it to the vast 'foundation' of sources from which the translators gathered the text, in multiple languages.

It properly is a translation in that sense.

 

Now about the rest, I can't sway anyone my way, it's against the rules, and I have broken the rules too much as it is. 

I came, yes to try to 'sway' as you term it, but looked like 'the fool' when I tried. (I obviously am new at the forums.)

And I don't like doing that, it's embarrassing. Yet, I moved on, and left 'it' out most of the time, using bad judgement

at times, and getting points.

 

I am just a simple country preacher, a Cincinnati suburb 'convert', who only has the knowledge of hearing the word of God

in a simple independent Baptist church in Southeastern Indiana (no longer in existence), and reading and studying the word of God myself.

Where the preacher preached and taught from the KJB (and he always did), teaching various 'doctrinal' subjects.

I was licensed to preach by our congregation in 1990. Giving me 'permission' to preach or teach whenever, or where ever

I have opportunity to magnify my Lord.

I have the same 'doctrines' that I have gathered from the Holy Scriptures, that I perceived from various Churches that our

Church fellow-shipped with for years. I never 'saw' some of the 'doctrines' in those independent Baptist Churches, that I read

about on this forum.

 

I obviously have increased in wisdom while here.

And I am trying to be more considerate of other beliefs than I did at my first postings.

I cannot, and will not defend my position that you mentioned about the 'Bible of my preference'.

 

Thank you for any prayers for my strength to be the right strength.

And my beliefs to be the right beliefs.


Edited by Genevanpreacher, 27 June 2014 - 04:23 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500