Jump to content

PreacherE

Member Since 05 Jun 2003
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 07:35 PM
-----

#302328 Have You Seen This?

Posted by Seth Doty on 18 July 2012 - 11:38 PM

My general impression is a good chunk of that circle/group/etc.(the wilds/majesty music/BJU etc.)of independent baptists are "drifting" away from former convictions to one degree or another. You see that in a continually increasing acceptance of corrupt bible versions and in gradually slipping musical standards that were once very high. I think what was once a musical conviction has for many in those circles become more of a musical church "tradition" instead. Typically in such churches they may or may not preach from the KJV and the importance of bible versions is downplayed, the music actually played and sung in the church is still fine, the "in church" standard of dress is still pretty high, and most of the actual doctrine taught is still just fine. However, things like facebook make it pretty clear that for a great many things that were once standards are now more a mere shell, a vestige of church tradition and no longer a real conviction of the people. If it was still conviction you wouldn't see so many of the same people who have a much lower standard of dress when outside the church or so many people(especially people under 30 or so) in those circles who "like" stuff ranging from stuff that is mostly fine like the vast majority of the stuff the wilds/majesty music/ the pettit's/ the galkins etc. produce while at the same time also "liking" or posting things on their facebook pages ranging from mild CCM, to Christian rock, to completely secular worldly music that doesn't even pretend to have any Christian aspects. It is sad because there were/are a lot of good Christians in that group/camp or whatever you want to call it but many in that group seem to be headed toward the neo-evangelical side of things with, as might be expected, an ever increasing hostility toward those who are not heading down the same path. I am sure there are many in those circles who still hold strong convictions but unfortunately there does seem to be a strong tilt away from that. I certainly don't have any animosity toward that "group" and many of my best bible teachers as a child came out of those circles, however unfortunately things can and do change with time... Proverbs 27:23-24 applies in a spiritual sense as well as a physical one...


#288407 Is It Wrong to Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?

Posted by Brother Rick on 02 February 2012 - 07:23 PM

The best man standing right now to run our country is Ron Paul. He's the only one who predicted how we would get here blow-by-blow back in 2002, and he's the only one I believe who has the courage and principles to do what needs to be done to get us out of this mess. While I can vote for him, I will. My primary vote will be for him because I support the message of freedom and I hold dear the Constitution.

Electability is a whim of masses that changes with the wind. I intend to vote upon principles, not a whim.


#285652 Why this celebration on this day?

Posted by DennisD on 31 December 2011 - 11:13 AM

Way of Life Encyclopedia
CHRISTMAS


Christmas it the celebration of the birth of Christ. It refers to Christ's mass, which obviously has a Roman Catholic origin. Normally it is observed on December 25. The practice was popularized by the Catholic Church, and like many other Catholic traditions, it was adopted from paganism; in this case, from the pagan mid-winter solstice marking the turn of the year. The following is a brief overview of its origin: "Saturnalia extended from December 17 to 24 and in A.D. 274 the emperor Aurelian made December 25 a feast of the invincible sun. January 6 was sacred to Dionysus. With the toleration of Christianity under Constantine, both December 25 and January 6 became Christianized feasts (Christmas and Epiphany, respectively). Symbols, originating largely from classical or Teutonic-Celtic paganism, such as lights, greenery, and special foods, gradually became associated with Christmas, as did St. Nicholas, whose feast on December 6 had been a time for giving gifts, especially to children" (New 20th-Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, pp. 181,182).

All of these things can still be observed in some pagan religions. For instance, in Hinduism, there is a festival of lights in early winter that features bright lights, special foods, the giving of gifts, the alleged visitation of a goddess who bestows blessings on those who are good, etc.
The Santa Claus observance is a Roman Catholic/pagan myth. The Catholic Pocket Dictionary of Saints has this to say about "Saint" Nicholas: "His popularity, already great, increased enormously in the West when his relics were brought to Bari in 1087, and his shrine was one of the great pilgrimage centers of medieval Europe. He is the patron of storm-beset sailors (for miraculously saving doomed mariners off the coast of Lycia), of prisoners, of children ... which led to the practice of children giving presents at Christmas in his name and the metamorphosis of his name, St. Nicholas, into Sint Klaes, into Santa Claus by the Dutch. It should be noted though that the figure of Santa Claus is really non-Christian and is based on the Germanic god Thor, who was associated with winter and the Yule log and rode on a chariot drawn by goats named Cracker and Gnasher" (Dictionary of Saints, pp. 369,370).

We don't have to reject every social pleasantry of the Christmas season, but God's people are plainly warned to beware of philosophy, the tradition of men, and the rudiments of the world which are not after Christ (Col 2:8). Christmas can be a pleasant social holiday, and there is nothing wrong with such things; and I see nothing wrong with remembering the wonderful birth of Christ, so long as the emphasis is not on His birth but on His death, burial, and resurrection.

At the same time, we reject the paganism and the Catholicism of the occasion. Our children have never believed in Santa Claus; we have never had Santa's image in our home. I believe that is idolatry. My wife was talking recently with a Hindu woman who thought that the Christian's God is Santa Claus, and that Santa Claus had a son who is the Christian's Savior. Sadly, for many professing Christians, that is probably close to the truth; because they glibly and mindlessly follow such pagan traditions.

As for the Christmas tree, we have often enjoyed one in our home, but we see it as merely a pleasant social thing that has nothing to do with our faith in Christ. Some have tried to intimate that Christmas trees are condemned in Jer 10:2-5, but I think that is off base. Jeremiah 10 is condemning idolatry, and I don't know anyone who makes an idol of a Christmas tree. We certainly don't. An idol is something used to portray God, but I have never heard of a Christmas tree being used in such a manner. At the same time, it is fearful to see Christmas trees and such things set up in churches. At least in my estimation, that is a step toward Catholicism. One might as well get some crucifixes and pictures of Jesus and a Mary with a halo to put alongside of it!
We can't "put Christ back in Christmas" because He never was in Christmas! Christmas really has nothing to do with the Bible. Christmas is not Christ's day. The first day of the week is the Lord's Day, the day of His resurrection, and it is the only special day God has given Christians. We are to honor Christ's resurrection, not His birth.

The bottom line is that Christmas is a Catholic myth. We know that Christ was not born in December. The fact that the shepherds were out in the fields when He was born (Lu 2:8) is evidence that Jesus was not born in the winter time. There is no indication in the Bible that God wants us to celebrate His birth with a special festival. If He did, He would have told us when He was born and what we should do on that day. Christianized error is error still.
Dear Christian friend, enjoy your freedom in Christ during the Christmas season. If your activities are not condemned in the Scriptures and you have a clear conscience before the Lord (Ro 14), you are free to enjoy yourself. At the same time, "Little children, keep yourselves from idols" (1Jo 5:21).


#280326 False Teacher Accusing False Teacher?

Posted by swathdiver on 23 October 2011 - 01:27 AM

So if John Piper's books contain the false teachings of Calvinism, shouldn't they be discarded as well?

My former pastor pushed some of Piper's books, be he had an "eat the meat and spit out the bones" philosophy on that.

I suppose it boils down to how serious you perceive the false teaching to be.


"Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?"


#270908 Which wine is the good wine?

Posted by John81 on 16 May 2011 - 05:14 PM

Scripture is clear enough that Christians shouldn't drink alcohol and is also clear that such is for fools. No Christian in right relation with Christ could drink alcohol with a clear conscience.


#268421 Church of Christ

Posted by chev1958 on 06 April 2011 - 09:03 AM

Unless I am wrong, you believe in the false doctrine of "once saved always saved," did you "get that from Luther? Must have since it isn't taught in the Bible.


This is to all non-IFSB posters: This is a IFSB forum. We are here to fellowship and exhort each other, not constantly defend our beliefs to folks who simply want to challenge and argue with us. You agreed to that when you joined.

We've tolerated your non-IFSB doctrine to the point that several of you are taking the role of moderators by answering questions with your beliefs, not the beliefs of the members of this forum.

If you don't agree with us, that's fine. I'm sure there are plenty of other forums where you can find support for your beliefs. I, for one, am sick and tired of these ad nausem debates that go on and on, and then resurrect themselves to go on and on again.

I've allowed discussion to continue for discussion sake, but it's obvious that we're not going to change each others' minds. I'm employing the spiritual principle of separation and asking you to please leave us alone and join forums that agree with you.

Pastor Mitch Holmes
Moderator


#256620 American Revolution: Biblical or Not?

Posted by HappyChristian on 18 October 2010 - 09:47 AM

Paul wrote Romans 13 to instruct the Jews in relation to the institution of government: not the incumbent in office. God instituted human government itself. Nowhere in Romans 13 did He mandate that there would never be a time that a government shouldn't be changed.

Note that Paul points out that government is to be a terror to evil works, not good. Someone mentioned Nero earlier...If any government can do anything because God supposedly says they can, then Nero was a good king. He was a terror to the evil. That's what Paul would be saying if what you are trying to make Romans 13 say was true. But that isn't what he was saying.

He was pointing out that GOVERNMENT is necessary, and that when there is government, Christians are to be good citizens. If the government is corrupt, there is nothing at all in scripture that tells us that we cannot do something to change that. If there were anything to indicate that, voting would be unscriptural, because we put our opinions into our votes (and, hopefully with Christians, prayer). And good citizens work to make sure their government is good...

The colonists did not "overthrow" the English crown. The colonists were English citizens, and they were supposed to be held under the same laws as those in the mother country. They were not. The king decided that he had a cash cow across the pond and taxed them accordingly. He also controlled much of their movement, and their religious activity. (now, if BO signed an executive order that every American must become Muslim or die: would you do that? If not, then you are not following your definition of Romans 13. But wait, you say. That demand wouldn't be scriptural, so I don't have to obey....Ah, but our founders were wrong to demand the scriptural right to worship God without interference from the government...because that was a major part of the dissent). They petitioned him. And petitioned him. Again and again. (his ignoring of the petitioning is the reason for it being part of the first amendment...)

The Declaration of Independence was written to sever ties with England. Not to overthrow. The colonists wanted a peaceful transition. But the king wasn't interested. The colonies had agreed (enough to count) to Independence. By the time the war actually started, they weren't English citizens: independence had been declared, whether the king accepted it or not. Kinda like with the Civil War: the south was no longer a part of the US, but Lincoln just ignored it.

His answer? To become more oppressive. Send soldiers to be housed in colonist's homes: without their consent. Would you sit still and allow BO to do that? Of course you would, because your ideas of Romans 13 tells you to...The king's actions regarding the soldiers is the reason for the third amendment.

England precipitated the war. The colonists responded. Wouldn't you do the same if your home(land) were attacked? Nah, Romans 13 says not to, right?

And the passage in James is talking about church situations....not countries at war. To say that it applies to all war indicts God: He sent Israel to battle. And He gave the victory. Just as He gave victory in the American War for Independence.

Isn't it something how gracious God was to us? Jesus, while here on the earth, lived under the opressive Roman empire (even though, while the Jews were under them, they actually did a lot of their own thing...). But God gave us aRepublic, where the PEOPLE are Ceasar, not the government. And, yes, God gave it us.


The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500