Jump to content

John81

Member Since 27 Sep 2005
Offline Last Active Today, 09:36 PM
****-

#397514 Santa Claus, Imitation Of Jesus Christ

Posted by John81 on Today, 02:41 PM

Oops messed that up, most people that are critical of my family ( no tv no fairy tales, boogey man and homeschooling) are Christian folk.

I've actually had Christians tell me I take the Bible too literally. They claim some of "that stuff" in the Bible might have been fine and worked "back then" but we can't live like that today. What they are referring to aren't things like OT ceremonial laws either, they are referring to aspects of how Scripture says we are to live our lives, raise our children, not be conformed to the world, allowing Christ to be seen in our lives and that sort of thing.

 

I can't count the number of Christians, including many Christian parents, who say children are different today and must be raised differently. They declare even Christian children can't keep themselves from premarital sex; they 'have to have' things like TV, internet, smart phones; teenage rebellion is natural; we have to let our children sow some wild oats; it deprives children to keep them out of public schools; sports, dating and social interaction in public schools is something our children need; we need to let our children decide for themselves what they want to do; and on and on with the unbiblical nonsense.




#397505 Questioning One's Belief Or View Of Scriptural Meanings

Posted by John81 on Today, 12:10 PM

John, I agree with what you are saying.  However, I respectfully disagree when you compare issues of doctrine to issues of liberty.  I believe this is an "apples/oranges" argument.  They are not the same thing.  There is room for charitable disagreement on liberty, but not on doctrine.  The NT is filled with warnings about false teachers and false doctrine.  I do not believe it to be appropriate to say that since there are differences in liberty that therefore we should accept differences on doctrine.  

 

I will say that allowing for minor differences on the nuances of dispensationalism gives us room to have good, sound, rational discussions to help everyone grow.  But that is a far cry from saying that we should just accept those who are teaching a completely different method of interpretation.  As Geneva noted, it affects the interpretation of every doctrine, and the application of Scripture.  

 

In Christ,

I apologize if I gave the impression I was comparing issues of doctrine to that of liberty as that was not my intent. My intent was to point out how the Corinthian Christians had misconstrued the doctrine of Christian liberty so badly that they embraced a very sinful relationship as being good (much like some churches today are embracing sinful homosexuality as good under the guise of Christian liberty) and Paul had to correct them on the matter.

 

I would agree that a discussion regarding the Scriptural basis for or against a pre-trib, mid-trib or post-trib rapture could be beneficial. That said, one member attempted such and was attacked for not being pre-trib and there can be no discussion under such conditions.

 

While I don't hold to the partial preterist position, in most cases Covenanter has presented his position with Scripture (whether we agree with his extrapolation of Scripture or not) and mostly without attacks and bad attitude. Unfortunately, several on the pre-trib side based many of their responses in the various threads mostly upon personal attacks, jabs and what appeared to be unloving attitudes. Such responses hurt rather than help the pre-trib view.

 

Most recently I attempted to gain a solid understanding upon one particular point in two separate threads. Unfortunately a Mod locked both threads shortly after this, and worst of all, in one thread after DaveW posted a reasoned answer to my question that could have served as the basis to get to the heart of my question but the Mod used some jabs by DaveW in that response as reason to lock the thread so the matter couldn't be pursued.

 

As we are told clearly in Corinthians, even if we are doing or saying what's good and right, if it's not done in love it counts for nothing.

 

Of all that I've heard and read, and I've heard and read more than I can count, on the pre-trib view, that which Pastor David Jeremiah put forth has been the most reasoned biblically I've come upon; and he did so without taking potshots at others. I wish I could personally ask him a couple of questions because I believe he would answer with love and patience and help me understand his answer.




#397486 Questioning One's Belief Or View Of Scriptural Meanings

Posted by John81 on Today, 07:29 AM

True, the answers are in Scripture.

 

False, on put 6 believers in a room with Scripture and no influence. Zero would come up with preterism. That is man made only and obscure as an understatement.

 

I have said it before and will again. I have been a member of more Bible believing churches in more places on this planet than anyone I have ever heard of and I have never heard a peep of this heresy until this forum.

 

I think some folks spend way too much time on the internet where you can read of any whacked out idea in the world. Because it is on the internet spouted out by two or three muttenheads doesn't make it anywhere near legitimate.

 

Yaw can keep tolerating this bunk if you want to, I won't. I will yell nay every time I see it

I didn't say anything about putting six believers in a room with Scripture and no influence. We all have some influence, even if it's minimal, whether right or wrong. Sunday school is man made yet most of our churches have such.

 

Yet the fact does remain, every idea out there regarding the meaning of biblical prophecy had it's beginning in how someone understood a certain verse or passage of Scripture. No doubt some were heavily influenced with some preconceived ideas or previous teachings, but right or wrong, they see the view they hold to as being scriptural. Sit down a pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib Christian and each will turn to Scripture to support their view and refute the others.

 

For any of us to simply say "my view is right because I get it from Scripture" isn't going to carry any weight with those holding a different view for they say the same thing. No doubt, each view can't be right.

 

Those with an open mind and a heart set upon knowing the truth will consider other views based upon Scripture and they will search the Scriptures regarding their view to see if it holds up. Then hopefully they will heed the leading of the Holy Ghost and adjust their view or hold more firmly to their view accordingly.

 

For those who have set their minds upon the view they hold being the Bible view (whether they are right or wrong), there is no point in arguing, debating or attempting to discuss the matter with them. They are set upon their view and uninterested in anything else.

 

Prior to the World Wars it was common among many Christians to believe in the view that Christians were going to make the world better until one day the world was so good Christ would return. After those wars that view was mostly cast aside. However, in recent years that view is once again on the rise. The core adherents to this view are not worth the time to address because their minds are set on that view and they will contemplate nothing else.

 

Christians read the Scripture and some determine all use of alcoholic drinks are forbidden while others determine drinking a little is okay. Some see nothing wrong with a Christian smoking a cigar while others see smoking as sin.

 

This is nothing new. Christians have been viewing Scripture differently from the beginning. Even Paul dealt with this as he had to tell the Corinthian Christians they were wrongly understanding and applying Christian liberty in not only accepting but praising an illicit relationship between a man and his step-mother.

 

This is why God appointed certain men to be preachers and teachers of the Word and why He gave us the Holy Ghost to help us.




#397428 Questioning One's Belief Or View Of Scriptural Meanings

Posted by John81 on Yesterday, 12:47 PM

Obviously we need an authority who can tell us for sure whose understanding of Scripture is correct. 

 

I believe the Apostles are the authority we have to give us that understanding as they teach from the OT, & apply the Law, Prophets & Psalms as written for our learning. They had Jesus & the Holy Spirit to give them inspired teaching. 

 

Teaching from the Law, Prophets & Psalms while not accepting the interpretation of the Apostles is at best uncertain ground. 

Indeed, whatever truth we have on these matters is in Scripture. Most would agree upon that point. The difference comes in peoples understanding of just what certain verses or passages mean. In some cases we could have half a dozen born again Christians in a room all reading the same verses and each having a different understanding of just what they believe the verses mean.

 

The back and forth postings between those already firmly decided on different views aren't very helpful; especially when they seem to always have those who can't help but posting in the flesh in ways that add bad witness to an already contentious thread.

 

The partial preterists aren't going to sway the committed pre-tribs and the pre-tribs aren't going to sway the committed partial preterists. There is really no good point in these two groups posting back and forth at one another.




#397419 The Cross And How Jews Perceive It: Sharing Messiah With The Jewish People

Posted by John81 on Yesterday, 08:16 AM

Covenanter,

We reject your false doctrine of preterism.

What happened in AD 70 was not the wrath of God.  It was man's wrath.  General Titus and his invading army was not God.  Nor did God order him to attack Jerusalem. 

Peddle your false doctrine in your own threads.

While one could argue just what aspect of God's wrath was at hand in AD 70, I do believe what occurred then was indeed a matter of God's wrath.

 

As recorded many times in Scripture prior to that time, God used powerful wicked nations to administer His wrath upon disobedient Israel. Even back in the books of Moses God warned such would happen.

 

That doesn't mean what happened in AD 70 was the end times wrath of God, or a fulfillment of all end times prophecies on the matter, but it does certainly fit with scriptural precedence and warning Words of Christ in the Gospels as God's wrath upon specific people for a specific reason.

 

I absolutely agree, that like all lost souls, Jews need to hear the Gospel and be born again in Christ, and when the Lord opens doors for such, we should be sharing Christ with lost Jews.




#397418 Santa Claus, Imitation Of Jesus Christ

Posted by John81 on Yesterday, 08:05 AM

I know this post stopped in March but as I was reading trough it I thought I would post my 2 cents. I have a 4 year old boy a 2 year old boy and.a 5 month old girl. They do not believe in Santa clause the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny or any other worldly fairy tales. The Bible tells us that we are a peculiar people (1 Peter 2:9). My wife homeschools our children and people consider our family crazy just because we are trying to do right by our Lord in the best way we can. I have had people accuse me of being mentally abussive to my children for not letting them believe in these worldly lies. The Bible also tells us not to be unequally yoked (2 Corinthians 6:14). We saved Christians need to start getting on the narrow path and not let the world and satan into our homes. The devil will use things that seem harmless but in the end can plant seeds of doubt in a child's mind. I didn't mean to type this much or take the thread in a different way but people I ask you to step back and look at your life are you a light for the lost or are you trudging through the muck next to them?

We've encountered similar as we've sought to raise our children biblically rather than based upon the worlds model. We've been accused of depriving our children of fun, ruining their childhood, not letting them be kids, etc.

 

Santa, the tooth fairy and such are fairy tales, works of fiction, fanciful stories. They are not real. Yet many parents, even Christian parents, not only portray them as real in order to manipulate their children or just for "fun", many also tell their children the "boogeyman" is real and use that to scare their children as a means of discipline or getting them to do what the parent says.

 

We need to keep our focus upon Christ and serving Him all year and not be distracted by the various things throughout the year designed to turn peoples thoughts from reality to fantasy and worse.




#397383 A Prayer For Our Relationship

Posted by John81 on 19 December 2014 - 08:45 PM

Praying...




#397317 Paul Craig Roberts Interview

Posted by John81 on 18 December 2014 - 08:50 PM

I see Putin said today that when the Berlin wall fell, Nato said they would not expand, but did so into the former eastern European countries almost immediately and now wanted to reach right to the Russian borders.  He said Russia has no troops in Ukraine .  

 

The west should speak to Russia not impose sanctions, because sanctions rarely work.  America has just realized that regarding Cuba, and decided to talk.  About time too.

Yes, Russian leaders were given assurances that if they dissolved the Soviet Union and what went with it, Russia would be welcomed as a friend by the Western nations. Assurances were given that NATO would not be expanded and there would be no attempts to turn former Soviet nations and Eastern Bloc nations into Western allies against Russia. Many assurances of friendship and cooperation were given by American and various Western European leaders.

 

Unfortunately, rather than take positive advantage of the opportunity to forge true friendship and trust with Russia, America and Western Europe decided to treat Russia as a defeated enemy, to rub her nose in her loss of status, to interfere in former Soviet nations and Eastern Bloc nations elections. To expand NATO, whose stated reason for existence was to counter the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations, into the very nations Russia was promised NATO would not expand into.

 

Putin, regardless of Western medias false claims of being a communist tyrant bent upon reforming the Soviet Union and taking on the West, actually spent much time and effort attempting to cooperate with America and Western European nations, especially in the area of terrorism. Unfortunately, most of Russia's help was either ignored or used but not given credit for.

 

With Obama things only got worse because Obama hates that Putin doesn't lick his shoes and the Left hates Putin's traditional and nationalistic stances. Obama has taken every opportunity to push against Putin; including interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs to the point of fomenting a coup by funding and supporting neo-nazis, anti-semites and anarchists; targetting Putin's ally in the Middle East (Syria); working with Saudi Arabia to flood the market with oil in order to drive down oil prices and damage the Russian economy; and most recently Obama's efforts to woo Cuba away from Russia by offering Cuba massive concessions while getting little in return.

 

Peace isn't profitable, peace isn't a distraction, peace doesn't afford easy means of creating or instigating a "crisis" for political purposes.

 

America and Western Europe came to rely upon the Cold War for personal and political gain and both have been unwilling to give that up so they continually poke the Russian bear and shine a spotlight upon Russia when she growls in response.




#397273 Questioning One's Belief Or View Of Scriptural Meanings

Posted by John81 on 18 December 2014 - 09:27 AM

As to the eschatology threads, for the most part they are a waste. The main contributors are obviously in debate mode, not discussion mode. Each side firmly committed to putting forth their view as the only possible acceptable view while at the same time firmly committed to attacking opposing views.

 

Therefore, these threads are always argumentative and combative. They serve no good because of the antagonism they breed.

 

There have always been those within IFB holding to slightly or more broadly different eschatological views. That was part of the "independent" aspect and eschatological views were not considered a fundamental matter.

 

Unless there are those willing to actually discuss eschatology with open minds, giving serious consideration to views presented and giving serious examination to whatever view currently held to see if it holds up, needs modified or may perhaps be wrong, there is little profit in getting into the subject here.




#397271 Questioning One's Belief Or View Of Scriptural Meanings

Posted by John81 on 18 December 2014 - 09:19 AM

Miss Daisy,

 

I won't go into any detail here so as not to disrupt the thread, but there is little difference between the Geneva Bible and the KJB. The translators of the KJB used and reviewed the Geneva Bible (as they did some others) in the translating of the KJB.

 

The real problem with the Geneva Bible is with regards to the notes. While most of the notes are sound and acceptable to most of us, there are those dealing with the issue of predestination and election which have a "Calvinist" take. That's why non-Calvinists didn't like the Geneva Bible, because of those notes which gave a "Calvinist" explanation to certain verses. That's also one of the reasons King James wanted a new Bible for English people and insisted there be no notes.




#396966 Pope Says "dogs Go To Heaven"

Posted by John81 on 13 December 2014 - 09:41 AM

Heaven is not our final destination - it's the NH&NE, & the glorious prophecies of the animals living in harmony there. Isa. 65:25

Agreed, but it should be noted there is no indication those animals are revived, restored or "glorified" animals which had died on the old earth.




#396961 The Moon Is It;s Own Light?

Posted by John81 on 13 December 2014 - 09:21 AM

I always say Genesis 1:1. is the most important verse in the bible.  If you don't believe that, you cannot believe anything that follows.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Indeed, if God's Word lies to us in the very first sentence then how can one put any trust in anything else in the Bible? Jesus spoke of the creation account as fact which means either it's true or Jesus can't be trusted. If one is going to reject the first verse, many others automatically fall with it, and all the others must be suspect since they are so closely tied to and associated with the verses rejected.




#396956 Sheep, Shepherd, Or Wolf?

Posted by John81 on 13 December 2014 - 09:12 AM

 Unfortunately, we have couple who stand on the corner in front of our church and smoke before and after service. It's so tacky, but so are they.

Our pastor took on the smokers at our church shortly after he became pastor. There were actually church board members who smoked in the church meeting room in the basement! Our pastor said there would be no more of that, the smokers argued, our pastor said the matter wasn't up for discussion because he firmly believes Christians smoking at church, especially leaders in the church, sends a very bad message (he explained his biblical meaning in the meeting).

 

The next day our pastor placed a "No Smoking" sign above the door to the meeting room and put forth a statement that all church property was a no smoking area. A few members actually left the church over the issue; apparently preferring their "right" to smoke whenever and wherever they wanted over putting Christ first. There have been no further problems over smoking at our church now for about 35 years.




#396842 The Moon Is It;s Own Light?

Posted by John81 on 12 December 2014 - 08:36 AM

The only way to attack the Bible through what it says is to twist it and misrepresent it. Typically, these people don't even know what the Bible actually says, only what they've heard others say. Since they already don't want to believe the Bible and want to attack it they are quick to accept anything they think they can grasp for an attack.

 

While in university I kept studied up on their arguments so when I encountered these often, as I did when there, I could turn their argument back upon them. They bring up the "big bang" so the question must be asked "where, or what, is the actual scientific proof of such?" Since none exists, they can't provide a solid answer. Even if they try to plod along I would ask what caused the "big bang"...where did the stuff they think caused the "big bang" come from?

 

While we could argue the Bible with them, I've found that's generally not helpful since they won't listen anyway, and usually even the onlookers are not swayed by such a defense. However, by taking the offense and questioning their beliefs they are most often taken off guard, most often unprepared to offer anything like a reasonable answer, and they generally end up looking as if they are backpeddling and skirting the questions. In the end, their offered up belief system is left in tatters which often leaves at least some of the onlookers with the idea that if the anti-Bible position isn't true maybe there is more to the Bible position than they thought. That has led to some more productive conversations.




#396684 The Russian Mind

Posted by John81 on 11 December 2014 - 08:51 AM

He raises many important matters. Those in the West attacking Russia/Putin are the same ones who attack us in the West who hold to Christianity, a more traditionalist American ideology (or a more 'Old Europe' view for some in Europe), and generally anyone not in lockstep with their liberal-humanist-leftist worldview. These same Leftists are also the ones fighting against traditional Christianity in Africa and South America.

 

As he points out, people aren't running to immigrate to Western nations because they embrace Western liberalism, they are running to the Western nations for the economic benefits, which include the liberal distribution of hand outs they receive from Western governments.

 

Not mentioned is how many immigrants into the West also view themselves as colonizers and look forward to their people taking over part or all of the West for their people or religion.

 

Mass immigration of those who don't wish to assimilate into Western nations but are looking to transform them works to the short-term benefit of the Western Leftists. They fail to calculate, or don't care about, the long-term consequences of their actions.

 

Putin upset the Western liberal elites when he announced his support for Christianity in Russia, his refusal to bow to the Western powers on the matter of "homosexual rights", and his determination to take a "what's best for Russia" stance instead of a "I'll do whatever the West wants so they will like me and give me money" position.

 

America is especially a people of "now". Most Americans have no clue of even modern history, let alone history beyond that. Most have no real understand of politics, nor do they know the true historical prominence of Christianity in the world.

 

American schools and the media are very narrow focused upon only a few points in an America-centered, liberal manner for the express purpose of controlling the "now" and making for an easily manipulated people both now and into the future.

 

The world is so much more complex than most in the West realize. While most in the West are focused upon their own personal happiness and material success, much of the rest of the world still struggles to survive, struggles to maintain their cultures, struggles to hold on to their unique identities, and in some areas they struggle to maintain a more traditional form of Christianity.

 

The West, which is now the bastion of liberal-humanism, greed, pornography, open sexual perversity, is intent upon forcing these things upon all others in the name of progress, human rights, democracy.

 

Is Russia (or any other nation) perfect, a shining light to the world, man's best hope? Of course not! Yet at this time in history Russia is an obstacle to the advancement of Western liberalism. Russia is a nation attempting to take a stand against being forcefully transformed into an "Obamanation". Russia isn't the bogey man so many make her out to be.

 

Were Putin to give a speech and declare is immediate acceptance of all things pro-homosexual, to toss open the doors to the corrupting influences of the Western world, to agree to go along with the Western desires, he would quickly be embraced as a great man and Russia would suddenly become a wonderful nation in the eyes and reporting of the Western media, politicians and professors.

 

Then we would soon be told who are new bogey man is and they would push our emotional buttons against them.






The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500