Welcome to the board lynn, I see you made it.
- Lynnie86 likes this
Jump to content
Posted by Seth Doty on 19 December 2013 - 08:04 PM
This is probably going to backfire on the network. The media has been pushing hard for homosexuality to be completely accepted as "normal" and to frame all those who disagree as "bad" people and bigots some time. While they have made significant strides toward shifting public opinion to match their point of view they are not all together there yet. They are overreaching on this one as the biblical point of view on homosexuality that he expressed is not yet as widely rejected and despised as they wish it would be. There are still a lot of even completely secular people who find it disgusting and morally objectionable even though they may not have the nerve to say so publicly.
Posted by Seth Doty on 21 September 2013 - 03:34 PM
Indeed, homosexuals, like all sinners, need to hear the Gospel, they don't need someone harping at them about one particular sin. All too often Christians approach homosexuals very differently than they do other sinners, and typically in a way not helpful to prepare them to receive the Gospel.
If homosexuals don't get saved, then it wouldn't matter if they gave up practicing homosexuality today, they would still be just as lost. Even so, Christians often try to get homosexuals to change while they are still lost.
May we share the Gospel with homosexuals and allow the Holy Ghost to do His part.
I see what your saying here to be an ever increasing refrain among professing Christians and very honestly I don't like it one bit. I think it is either a intentional or unintentional effort to bring the Christian world view a little "closer" to the modern acceptance of homosexuality in the western world. Yes, it is indeed quite true that any sin will send someone who has not trusted in Christ to hell but some sins are indeed "worse" than others and are frequently indicative of a exceptionally deep level of depravity. God overthrew Sodom & Gomorrah to make an example of them when that sort of sin was extremely widespread. The nation of Israel almost wiped out one of their own tribes, the tribe of Benjamin, at one point for the same level of depravity when it existed on a broad scale in that tribe. Homosexuality is a extremely serious, extremely depraved and wicked sort of sin. It is one of the sins, along with murder, that in biblical history hastens the filling up of Gods cup of wrath and brings national judgment when it is widely practiced and accepted. It isn't exactly a ho, hum, you went 10 miles an hour over the speed limit and that is wrong but we are all sinners and nobody is perfect sort of thing. I relatively recently heard a preacher at a large "progressive" rock and roll(IMHO) type church in the greenville sc area preach on the subject of homosexuality. To his credit, at least he did say flat out that it was wrong. What definitely was not to his credit though was the timid, apologetic way in which he said it. He then proceeded to spend twice as much time preaching against "homophobia" and did that with much more enthusiasm and strong words. All he was doing was reflecting cultural pressure. I find it funny in a way that when you break down the term "homophobia" it literally means the fear of man, and that is exactly what bowing to cultural pressure is, the fear of men and what they will say. Of course when the term is used in our culture it is applied to those who actually are not afraid of man and are not embarrassed to say that "men with men working that which is unseemly" as scripture puts it, is a immoral, vile and utterly repulsive activity. I guess I am saying don't be afraid to call a spade a spade. More and more Christians are getting to where they are afraid to call a spade a spade in this area and try to sugar coat it. Some things can't and shouldn't be sugar coated. This is one of those areas where the modern western world is going to hate bible believing Christians for what they stand for. It is not avoidable, it just goes with the territory. We just need to accept that is the way it is, deal with it, and go from there.
Posted by Seth Doty on 27 July 2013 - 03:06 PM
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
There are people that believe that this is prophetic with regards to the KJV. They feel that the various printings are purifications (for example some think the Oxford 1769 printing is one purification) and that there will be a final error free printing. So AV 1611 would be the first .... Oxford 1769 another ... etc.
That is, the KJV was complete and perfect from the beginning but there is a purification process with the printed representations of the KJV that will result in a jot and tittle perfect printed text after the seventh printing. What do you think?
I think it is balony.
Posted by Seth Doty on 13 July 2013 - 05:03 PM
We are lousing the youth with hymnals only. They are the future of our true faith and the sharing of the gospel of Christ.
Your loosing the youth with or without "hymnal only". The only question is what are you loosing them to? My suspicion is that many conservative churches are essentially like the Church at Sardis and loose the youth in part for that reason, however, what they loose them to tends to be either the world outright or Laodicean like churches. If A Sardis like church is loosing its youth to the world and Laodicean like churches the answer is not become more like the world and Laodicean like Churches, the answer is get right with God, get real, and be something worth having and being rather than being just a empty talking shell. Converting from the church of sardis to the the church of laodicea does no one any good, it just trades one set of problems for another. That is why so often there is a progression in youth that start out in a conservative church, move to a more liberal church, then end up quitting on God and churches all together. They see dead liberalism isn't really any better than dead conservatism and just get to where they don't see anything worth having at all.
Posted by Seth Doty on 03 June 2013 - 05:23 PM
The issue is you can't run to an edition of the TR and say well this disagrees with the AV so the AV is wrong. The AV is not a direct translation of any one edition of the TR and it shouldn't be viewed that way.
This does not jive with what I remember studying, but it really goes beyond my knowledge. Would someone else be able to speak to it?
My understanding is that there are minor differences between the various editions of the TR, but for the most part they are on the level of the differences between say a 1611 edition KJV and a 1769 edition KJV. In other words pretty much the same thing. When you get into other text lines though obviously the differences get much bigger very quickly.
Posted by Seth Doty on 03 May 2013 - 09:47 PM
How many non-BJU folks could we find out there who have failed and are teaching pure error? Particularly those who called themselves to preach and never had any formal Christian education?
I think just a little more contempt, accusation, and loathing is in order for BJU...I'm still not convinced a person would fail to receive a strong Bible based education from BJU. Please, could you provide just a little more acrimony.
Oh please. lol Insofar as I know no one here has any reason to say anything negative about BJU that is untrue. We don't wish for things to be this way, it is just that that is how things are. Some of my best bible teachers growing up were BJU grads, grads of 40 + years or so ago now. Same as with tennessee temple. Lot of good bible teachers came out of there many years ago, but it is nothing like it was at one time. Now tennessee temple is a mess. I truly wish the BJU of today wasn't the way that it is. To illustrate that point I will say that the only girl I ever cared about is a BJU grad, her father was a pastor in the area for many years, and she & her family are heavily involved in those circles. I believe she works at the wilds these days. We got along well, she was/is a sweet girl, and I was willing to stretch few things for her, but while we got along well & she said I was a "great guy" ultimately she turned me down and told me it was because I was too conservative. Primarily meaning I was KJVO, my views on pants on women(which was an area we both were willing to move some on if we had to) and possibly my music standards which were a little stricter. Nobody was mad at anybody, and I felt it was a highly unfortunate but at the same time very understandable situation. Never dated/courted anyone else before or since and while I don't rule it out I still don't really have any desire to do so and I don't know that I ever will. The BJU crowd by and large just isn't very conservative at all anymore and has not been for some time. That is pretty much just a fact. About the only thing left that is still conservative is the music and that is rapidly changing.
Posted by Seth Doty on 03 May 2013 - 05:20 PM
I wouldn't approach things like he has but it cannot be denied that he is one of the main reasons for KJVO movement. And he hasn't changed his ways since he started so I don't see how it's finally become a joke because of him when he's been at it longer than anyone else.
Sure it can. He is responsible for one segment of the KJVO crowd only. The rest of us have just about as big of an issue with him and a lot of his teachings & followers as we do with the MV promoters. Maybe more in some ways because he makes us look bad through assumed association while with the MV'er's the differences are obvious to all. What ruckman teaches really isn't any better than what the MV promoters teach. His teaching may be a totally different kind of rotten fish as it were, but even so it is still rotten fish. It is like Arminianism vs Calvinism, one isn't really any better or worse than the other, they are both seriously messed up though in different ways.
Posted by Seth Doty on 02 May 2013 - 09:51 PM
Also, he said he started the name calling and harsh language because that was the way to get the attention of the bible correctors and get the KJV issue out in the forefront where people would pay attention to it. He said that men like Edward Hills and David Otis Fuller were real polite yet nobody gave them the time of day.
The ends justifies the means eh. In my opinion all he has done is make the KJVO position look stupid and saddle its adherents with a somewhat deserved reputation for a unchristian attitude. If you can't tell I don't think a whole lot positive about the man or his methods..
Posted by Seth Doty on 27 April 2013 - 11:19 PM
No one side should be condemned any more than the other. Your political afiliation doesn't save nor condemn you.
Your affiliation with Christ certainly should effect your worldview views in many areas. If it doesn't there is a serious problem somewhere.
You also said,
Who said anybody is trying to ban guns! Where does that scare tactic come from? Your perception at the get go is already flawed!
I won't lend my gun to just anybody so we shouldn't sell to just anybody. Background checks are sensible and even then just because someone is a law abiding citizen doesn't automatically make them a responsible gun owner. It's also sensible to get a complete database to tract assault weapons and guns in general after the original sale. Locking cabinets and trigger locks should be used esp. in household with children or mentally unstable people. Why can't we have sensible laws about gun ownership. It's the responsible thing to do.
The the idea that many liberals would like to "ban guns" is not a scare tactic, many influential liberals have said they would do so if they could at various times. The thing is, they know it is not politically practical at this time so they push for what they think they can get and call it "reasonable", and "sensible". What is "reasonable"? Why it is always just a little more than what is currently law of course. To take one example of a social issue where the bar of what was "reasonable" has moved take what is now the battle over favorable governmental and social recognition of homosexuality. Early in our countries history homosexuality was flat out illegal. What was "reasonable" then was that the activity was disgusting, immoral, and harmful to society as a whole and should be illegal. Then the bar was moved and the "reasonable" ground became that it wasn't anyone else business one way or another, that it was still disgusting and immoral but that it didn't effect or hurt anyone else and should not be illegal. Then the bar moved again and the new "reasonable" became that while it might be a little disgusting and it might not be your personal "preference" there was really nothing wrong with it and that the government should allow homosexual "civil unions". Then the bar moved again and what is "reasonable" has become that there isn't a thing in the world wrong with it, anyone who says otherwise is a bad person, and that homosexuals should be allowed to "marry" and should receive the same social and governmental treatment as a historical one man/one woman marriage would receive. What is considered "reasonable" now has moved so far from what once was "reasonable" that even those that oppose homosexual marriage frequently start by saying that while they are against homosexual "marriage" they have homosexual friends, they don't have a problem with it, or that they don't mind "civil unions" blah, blah blah. All this in a attempt to be seen as "reasonable".
The point is, what is "reasonable" tomorrow is always a little more than what is reasonable today, and that the line between what "no one is talking about" and what will "never happen" and what does happen depends on where and how far "reasonable" is allowed to go. I am pretty sure the founders of this country would not have considered it reasonable for the federal government to require individuals to purchase health care yet here we are. I am pretty sure the founding fathers would not have considered it "reasonable" for the supreme court to consider whether or not there is a "constitutional right" to homosexual marriage, but here we are.
Reasonable is a highly fluid thing.
Posted by Seth Doty on 27 April 2013 - 10:21 PM
The thing is though is its the job of a preacher to exhort us to do what the Bible already tells us to. All I know is things are not like they used to be. Half the students are more concerned with Macbeth and Shakespeare than serving God. You hear stories of things that are done and it seems no different than a state school in some aspects. When leaders of a college say you're a heretic if you believe the King James to be the inspired Word of God then you shouldn't expect too much. Professors who defend use of the NIV, which had a lesbian on the translating committee, is sickening.
Concerning the OP I don't know that I see a big problem with half the people not wanting to stand up and "commit" to anything for many of the same reasons "Heir of Salvation" mentioned. I do however agree that BJU is something of a mess on a wide range of issues and is hardly a conservative christian school. Between the rampant John Piper/John Macarthur style Neo-Calvinism, which keeps all the bad doctrine of historic Calvinism but also adopts carnal music, worldly mannerisms, dress etc. under the guise of "grace" and the slow but ever increasing "doctrinal drift" on a wide range of issues I just don't just see a whole lot left worth having. From my perspective much of what is left up there that is good is just an empty shell of old traditions that were once convictions but that they no longer really believe. A lot of their young people are realizing that, reacting, dumping those "traditions" and it is becoming sort of a self destructing doctrinal train wreck that grows worse and worse and will end who knows where.
It is sad thing to see, but maybe if things get bad enough some of them will realize that in many cases they have sold out the authority of the word of God for phony humanistic intellectualism, and traded a heavenly focus & walking with God for goofing off and "fellowshipping" with cultural Christians who have little or no genuine spiritual focus. Oh, typically there are a few buzzwords about Christianity being a "relationship" and what have you, but the lifestyle lived tells another story of a little bit of Jesus, made in their own image, on the side as it were. That said, I do think there are a few up there that still have their priorities straight, even in
Posted by Seth Doty on 26 April 2013 - 09:32 PM
The Bible makes it clear that angels and demons (if you want to be technical "devils" - fallen angels) fight. They actively engage in open combat with each other, a clear example of this is found in Revelation 12. In Daniel it speaks of the little horn casting down some of the host of heaven to the ground and stamping upon them, which would lead me to consider that demons can hurt and cause damage to Angels. In Daniel 10 (I think) Gabriel goes to deliver a message of hope to Daniel, but he is held up in combat with the Prince of Persia for 21 days. Hebrews speaks of angels being spirits - and a spirit can't die (at least I don't think it can - what about the spirit of the beast that goeth downward), so that would make me wonder why they fight. Demons CAN be held captive (Jude talks about that), but what about angels? What is outer darkness, does it have anything to do with this?
Can anyone add any insight to these sort of things? Maybe theories (as long as they aren't blatantly against scripture)?
I think your venturing beyond what can be known from scripture. In my opinion though, which is worth what your paying for it, angels "fighting" demons relates primarily to what the angels & the devil/demons are allowed to do on this earth and the timing of it. I don't think an angel can be "defeated" or "held captive" per se, just that their are some demons/devils that are powerful enough that some angels cannot stop them from doing what they want to do when they want to do it. Likewise there are some demons that are apparently able to hinder some angels from doing the work God has sent them to do.The first cases we have in scripture is one you mention, the angel Gabriel that came to Daniel in Daniel chapter 10. That angel specifically states that the first day Daniel started praying about the matter that Daniels prayers were heard and that he(the angel) was coming in response to those prayers. However, the angel was apparently hindered by a powerful demon called only "the prince of the kingdom of persia" for twenty one days until michael the Archangel helped him. The other case we know about is mentioned in the book of Jude where the angel michael and satan are disputing about the body of Moses. There it says that Michael told satan "the Lord rebuke thee" because satan has so much power that even michael the archangel did not want to take him on directly. What the dispute over the body of moses was we can't say, but it must have potentially have been fairly significant if Michael and satan were disputing over it.
Oh, btw, in my opinion, the little horn in daniel that cast down some of the "host of heaven" is speaking of neither angels nor demons.
Posted by Seth Doty on 08 April 2013 - 10:42 PM
This sounds like it's straight from modern evangelists, one world peace, let's all get along theology, look over "petty" differences.
There is nothing wrong with wanting peace & unity as long as your not going to value it so highly you sacrifice what is right in a attempt to get it. Likewise people frequently do have "petty" differences they should get over. There is no great glory or joy in fighting. As Christians we should stand firm & fight for what is right when we must, but it should be treated a necessary evil that exists only because of sin and as something to be avoided when it is possible to do so without compromise. Any fighting a Christian does should be with a purpose and direction in mind not just fighting for its own sake as can easily happen if we are not careful. Hebrews 12:14 applies. We should seek peace if it is possible to do so without compromising Holiness. Thing is, if fighting even for the right things is done in a carnal manner it in many ways defeats the purpose and comes across as hypocrisy even if the initial motives were good.
Posted by Seth Doty on 07 April 2013 - 08:56 PM
That's a major problem we have today. It reminds me of those who were saying they were of Apollo or Cephas or Paul, which prompted Paul to write them tell them they should all be followers of Christ, working together and caring for one another.
Today we have some who say they are in the Sword camp, or the BJU camp, or PCC, or Hyles, or they follow this preacher or that preacher.
No doubt if real persecution comes upon us we will have to meet like some do now in Christian unfriendly nations. Fear, lack, a feeling of nowhere else to turn, as well as true dedication to Christ will force folks to come together where they can. At the same time, those weak in the faith or those who are pretenders will drop their Bibles and avoid us.
While that sounds nice in theory the reality is those "camps" exist for good reasons. By and large the "camps" exist not because people randomly decided to become part of some "camp" and ignore others not in their "group" but because they have genuine doctrinal disagreements with many in those other groups. For one example, typically, to get along with the BJU "camp" one needs to downplay the importance of bible versions/translations/textual sources and say pretty much anything goes within certain very broad limits. If you don't do that and take a firm stand on the KJV in english you probably will not fit with the BJU "camp" and if they can't change you by and large they will not be happy with you. Very understandable given their views. For another example the hyles "camp" is very strong on pastoral authority and leans toward leading people in quick one, two, three repeat after me prayers in evangelism. If you speak against those kind of things you probably will not make them to happy with you either. As I see it the reason the "camps" exist is because there is enough doctrinal disagreement to make things somewhat uncomfortable and strained between them but the differences are not yet quite great and uniform enough to justify a pretty much complete and total across the board type separation as we would for say pentacostals, 7nth day adventists, COC, presbyterians etc.
If there was a good way to eliminate the "camps" without surrendering doctrinal beliefs I suspect you could get wide spread support from most people in each and every "camp". The reality is though that "religious" unity always comes at the expense of something and usually that something is someone giving up or changing their doctrinal beliefs. Ideally there would be near complete unity among all Christians as they conformed to the image of Christ and learned his doctrine and his will but reality is that doesn't happen to any significant degree because many/most people knowingly or unknowingly look at the will of God and bible doctrine through the tinted glasses of their own opinions and experiences. How do you fix such a basic fact of human nature? You can't really as far as I can tell, it is hard enough to try to not to look through tinted glasses yourself let alone take the tinted glasses off others.
The verse that tells us the requirements for biblical unity is this one:
"1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."
The rub of course is none of us are walking in the light as Christ is, and others are not walking in the light as Christ is either, so our fellowship with other believers is far from perfect and often related to whether or not their "glasses" are clear and untinted in a particular area if we are in the right, or if their "glasses" are tinted the same color as ours in another area if we are in the wrong without knowing it.... Sometimes I hate reality....
Posted by Seth Doty on 12 March 2013 - 09:25 PM
Is Christ extorting love by offering salvation? Christ "expects" our love.
I seem to recall salvation is a free gift for which no payment can be made.... Christ doesn't exactly offer us a service for which he "expects" a "tip" of some sort. I don't think that is the best analogy.