Jump to content


Member Since 19 Sep 2007
Offline Last Active Today, 10:34 AM

#380230 Speaking In Tongues

Posted by DaveW on Yesterday, 05:24 PM

Had enough of several thread here where people apparently are deliberately misunderstanding what is plain.

There are a number of people here who have no right teaching on a Baptist board, who obviously have seriously unbiblical and non - Baptist teaching who presume to do so.

There are people who often, if not constantly, post untrue information, and who deliberately misrepresent what other members say.
There are some here who apparently want to defend these too.......

You say whatever you want - I give up.

#380190 John Calvin Had It All Wrong

Posted by DaveW on Yesterday, 08:22 AM

I have no problem with opposing points of view.
I have a problem with people posting false information that they know for certain will be offensive to many on this site.

He does this.
Not opposing views - false and deliberately offensive.

And I am not the only one who thinks so.

You seem to be happy to allow him to be deliberately offensive but baulk at the mere suggestion that someone might have an opposing view on decently dressed women.

#380187 John Calvin Had It All Wrong

Posted by DaveW on Yesterday, 08:10 AM

When people post something they KNOW WILL BE OFFENSIVE they should be pulled up.
Regardless of the subject matter, if they post something THEY KNOW WILL BE OFFENSIVE they should be dealt with.

He does precisely that.

#380184 John Calvin Had It All Wrong

Posted by DaveW on Yesterday, 07:36 AM

So its OK now to put up things that you know with certainty will cause offence?

What if someone posts pictures of scantily clad women?
He thinks it is Ok - just because it might offend someone else is no reason not to post them huh?

#380180 John Calvin Had It All Wrong

Posted by DaveW on Yesterday, 07:18 AM

Yes he willingly and knowingly posts items that he knows are against the majority here and that he is certainly aware will cause offence.

#380171 Original Sin/the Sin Nature

Posted by DaveW on Yesterday, 05:08 AM

It's  not about DNA, it is about sin.


And it is not about his descendence from David - no one disputes that Biblical fact. But that has absolutely no relevance to the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, which is plainly stated in the Bible that Jesus was "made of a woman", thereby NOT PASSING THE SIN NATURE to Him, which is passed by the authority line of the father.


I have plainly explained to you where your argument is faulty and you ignore the simple and argue the absurd.


It is my view that you are doing this deliberately.

For what purpose I do not know.

#380151 Original Sin/the Sin Nature

Posted by DaveW on 27 July 2014 - 10:41 PM

There is no argument that Jesus was from the line of David - it is plainly so.

But He was so through his mother, as He had no physical father.

This is why your whole argument is irrelevant - there was no direct physical father of Jesus for the sin nature to be passed through - which is PRECISELY why the Bible says Jesus was "made of a woman".

#380147 Speaking In Tongues

Posted by DaveW on 27 July 2014 - 09:53 PM

Psa 138:8 The LORD will perfect that which concerneth me: thy mercy, O LORD, endureth for ever: forsake not the works of thine own hands.

#380144 Original Sin/the Sin Nature

Posted by DaveW on 27 July 2014 - 09:49 PM

The actual issue is that David must still have had a father and a mother does not conceive alone.
The father's seed must be present - your speculation of another mother is irrelevant in the argument.
David, like all men, was conceived in sin - this is the natural reading of the passage.
And it fits with the verses I posted previously.

#380140 Original Sin/the Sin Nature

Posted by DaveW on 27 July 2014 - 09:42 PM

You are not responding to what he's saying, you are just basically saying "You are wrong and I am right" , without even defending your position, you are not being honest about debunking his position.

No, I am pointing out that he is moving from Biblical fact to speculation when he bases a doctrine on words like "probably".

He is trying to argue that David being conceived in sin is because "he probably was from Jesse's second wife."

If he showed biblical proof of it then fine, but he did not.

I showed in two simple verses a basic run down - he responded with speculative argument.

I am not going to argue against speculation with more speculation.

By the way he responded to me by saying that what I posted was false and unsupported by Scripture.

Who exactly is accusing without Addressing the post?

#380133 Speaking In Tongues

Posted by DaveW on 27 July 2014 - 09:34 PM

The word "perfect" can also mean complete.
The Word of God was completed - perfected if you will - with the closing words of John.
Completing - or perfecting - the Revelation of God to man in His Word - no need of further special prophecy or further special revelation.

#380125 Original Sin/the Sin Nature

Posted by DaveW on 27 July 2014 - 09:17 PM

Unsupported by the Scriptures?
Hmmmmmm I thought Romans 5:12 and Galatians 4:4 were in the Bible???

I guess I will have to go and look again.....

#380116 Original Sin/the Sin Nature

Posted by DaveW on 27 July 2014 - 08:34 PM

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Death came upon all men when Adam introduced sin into the world - because of this all men have sinned.
That is Biblically plain - all men are sinners because Adam sinned, and we are his children.

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Notice that His Son was made "of a woman".
The Virgin birth is essential because the Bible indicates that the sin nature is passed through the man - part of God's defined authority structure.
Jesus had no earthly father and therefore no inherent sin nature.

Sin was neither within Him, nor did He sin of Himself.

#380100 Speaking In Tongues

Posted by DaveW on 27 July 2014 - 07:29 PM

1Co 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

Tongues have ceased.

#380097 Blood Moon Tonight

Posted by DaveW on 27 July 2014 - 06:48 PM

Surely the discussion of "blood moons" IS their possible significance is relating to Israel & prophecy. And the present & recent events in Israel/Palestine are momentous. Whatever the truth & lies in the countless Youtube clips, & supposed hisorical accounts, TV & Newspaper reports etc, there are undisputed truths:

Israel has systematically expanded into Palestinian territory.

Gaza has been heavily bombed, with the death of over 1,000, mostly women & children, & the destruction of the infrastructure - water, sewage, elelctricity.

Hamas rockets are largely harmless & a futile act of defiance, merely giving Israel an excuse for more murderous bombing.

Only the Gospel of peace with God through the LORD Jesus can bring true peace, BUT meanwhile, a general acceptance of the 10 commandments, & the principle of justice declared, e.g. by Micah, would be a move towards peaceful living together - as gave Britain & America a peaceful society.

America's support for Israel has prejudiced the Arab world against indigenous Christians, resulting in deadly persecution.

What you did IS disrespectful to the OP.

The rest of what you said here is just another example of your twisting of facts to fit your own false theology.

Israel stops the fight - Hamas keeps firing rockets.
I hope you would be happy to have some of these "largely harmless" rockets fired into your area......

Act of defiance? Hardly - act of war - absolutely. And aimed directly and ONLY at civilian centre's.

But you keep on ignoring the facts - it appears to make you happy.

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500