Jump to content

ThePilgrim

Member Since 07 Aug 2011
Online Last Active Today, 07:40 PM
-----

#388987 Walmart’S New Employee Dress Code Sparks Debate

Posted by EKSmith on 26 September 2014 - 01:14 AM

Can the Walton"s afford to furnish their employees uniforms should be the question brother John Forbes reported their worth not long ago -Robson Walton $ 20.5 Billion , Alice Walton 20.9 billion, and Jim Walton 21.1 billion all three up 4 billion each this year.

Would it really hurt them $$$ to help their employees if they are gonna have a dress code.

 

Wal-Mart is a Godless company whom cares nothing for their employees they give the same 10% discount as their Christmas bonus to their low wage workers whom they are now making them change there dress code ? a early Merry Christmas from Wal-Mart to there employees 

Wal-mart is oppressing there employees with this burden for their own gain. 

 

I own a service business that's God centered and the folks that work for me are family to me and provided for in all their needs yet my company nor I will ever be listed with Forbes,  All my worth is stored in Heaven

 

 

God Bless brother




#389180 Hypocrisy Left And Right

Posted by John81 on 27 September 2014 - 08:38 AM

I've no problem with the factual statements Beck makes. While there were problems with his TV show on Fox, he was exposing some facts that many don't want made common. This is why he was canned.

 

My problem with Beck is him portraying himself as both Mormon and Christian, declaring the two are the same, and then he often mixes in Mormon teaching with his speeches.

 

Buchanan has governmental experience and a keen sense of the times we live in. If one has read his writings for a number of years it's amazing at how right on point he's been. So much of what he warned about regarding world affairs, domestic matters, politics and more have been proven correct.

 

While he's certainly not flawless, I would consider Buchanan's thoughts on these matters before Beck's.




#389068 Eric Holder Has Resigned!

Posted by "I am chief" on 26 September 2014 - 02:16 PM

As bad as Holder is/was, he is a saint compared to Harry Reid.  

In no way is Reid or Pelosi as bad as Eric Holder. I won't go into all that Holder has destroyed in his short stint as the 'Lawyer-in chief' but you won't have to dig far to find out. It's a good think he is gone and everyone should just praise God for answering prayers to remove him. Certainly a 'type' of the false prophet as far as the U.S. is concerned.




#388727 Historians Trace The Earliest Church Labeled "baptist" Back To 1609

Posted by John81 on 24 September 2014 - 07:03 AM

If a particular name for a church were a key factor the Lord would have given such to us. The first churches we read of in Scripture were known by their location. The church of (at, or in) Ephesus, for example. We learn that in Antioch followers of Christ were first called Christians.

 

When persecution came to the Christians in Jerusalem they scattered, spreading the Gospel, which led to the spread of Christianity and establishment of churches outside Jerusalem. We latter read of evangelistic missions that further spread the Gospel and saw more churches established. All of these, as far as we are told, were known by their location and the fact they were a gathering of believers.

 

Differing names for Christians came about latter and typically out of disputes; some legitimate, some not so much. While some of these newly named churches were false churches, many were Christian but with varying views on certain matters which caused them to separate from one another, giving themselves distinctive names so as to set them apart; often a name based upon their most prominent preacher at the time. Even some of the earliest of those coming together as what would become the Catholic Church were Christians, but their wrong views in various areas and growing willingness to compromise, soon brought about a totally corrupt false church system. This is partly why the RCC has always gone to such lengths to try and claim a direct link to the Apostles and thus to Christ. Unfortunately, some Baptists try to do this as well rather than simply pointing to their biblical stance as proof they are true followers of Christ.

 

The very fact there are dozens of varieties of Baptists should make it clear the name itself isn't what's important. Our particular Baptist branch (IFB) has only been around for a little over a hundred years.

 

Rather than trying to trace a history from the First IFB Church of Hob Knob Arkansas all the way back to the Apostles, we would use our time much better in preaching and showing acceptance and obedience to the Word of God. If we are truly living for Christ our example will stand out and stand clear.




#388710 Historians Trace The Earliest Church Labeled "baptist" Back To 1609

Posted by wretched on 23 September 2014 - 08:22 PM

Hi everybody :)

A couple of issues: Salyan is right in regards to me not addressing anyone in particular unless of course you intimate that you follow John the Baptist in "anything".

 

I am familiar with some of the books you gents keep quoting or referring to as if they were authoritative. I abandoned reading men's slanted views on historical events long ago including baptist history.

Hopefully one day you folks will realize that the gents who wrote these books are, pardon my french, muttenheads just like us who wrote their interpretations of these historical events in their own slanted viewpoints just like all of man's written history. Some with evil motives, some with honorable motives but all wanted their money for their "work".

 

One of you quotes ones man's work as if authoritative and another of you writes about some other muttenhead's work as authoritative. NONE are authoritative by any stretch of the imagination.

 

You waste your time trying to be learned in man's interpretation of anything.

 

You want to know history un-slanted, Read your Bible, praying.

 

That is all I am trying to convey here.




#388679 Historians Trace The Earliest Church Labeled "baptist" Back To 1609

Posted by Salyan on 23 September 2014 - 12:41 PM

 

 
If Baptists are Baptist by doctrine, or as Jim puts it 'doctrine, belief and practice', then why would it matter if someone wanted to call the church they are part of 'protestant' to indicate that some time in the past that church's early members had been under the yoke of catholicism and had come out from it (presumably at great cost to themselves)? It would be in the same vein as folk calling their church 'independent' or 'fundamentalist'. The important thing wouldn't be where they had come from, but what they had become.

 

It would matter only in our endeavor to trace our history. If, in tracing our history, we come to this supposed church, then the doctrinal history would stop there, because before that they were Protestants. This is the mistake that the OP made that led him to believe that Baptists had, at one time come out of the reformation.

 

But not knowing the exact circumstances of their divergence from the Protestant movement we can only guess at best as to whether or not they had become a true New Testament Church. As I said in another post any authority, including church authority has a source. The original source for church authority is Jesus Christ. This authority is preserved down through the ages by one church begetting (or authorizing) another of the same faith and order.
 
Yet the argument on this thread seems to be (and I may have misunderstood it) that one simply can't be a Baptist if one's ancestors or one's particular church's founders were folk who came out of catholicism. If that's true, it means that Baptists are not just Baptist by doctrine, but by lineage also--i.e. you can only be Baptist if your ancestors were Baptist (even if not by name).

 

Again the issue of authority comes into play here. In the illustration you gave above I would have to say that if they just decided to start teaching Baptist doctrine, without  any attempt to seek approval of an existing Baptist church, this would not constitute them as a Baptist church.

 

I keep saying that authority has a source. I am trying to not get too long winded here but perhaps a short illustration is in order. Let's use a police department for an illustration of authority. A police department derives its authority from a government entity such as a city, state or county.

 

Now, I decide I want to start a police department. I go buy uniforms, badges, police cars and am determined to uphold the laws of the land. Does this make what I have created a police department? Of course not. Why? Because I lack proper authority.
 

In another thread, GraceSaved was explaining her dilemma of not being near a Biblically-sound IFB church. The reaction of lots of people on this forum was to say that she should start one with other believers at someone's home, even if it meant that they wouldn't have a Pastor to start with.

 

Now are you saying that if Gracesaved and the other hypothetical believers had been muslims or a catholics before their salvation, then it would be forever impossible for them to group together as a church, no matter their doctrine, beliefs and practice?

 

No, I am not saying this at all. The advice given to Gracesaved was solid advice and was also predicated by saying that this group that have banded together should seek out the approval of an existing Baptist church. This is a good example of how mission churches are eventually established as a separate Independent Church.

 

I hope this helps clarify my stand on this issue without having to write and book to explain it.

 

 

Seems to me that as independent churches, we derive our authority directly from Jesus Christ, our Head. He is the sole head and authority of each independent church. If a church's doctrine is Baptistic, then they are a Baptist church - whether they have been duly 'authorized' as such by an 'official' Baptist church or not. This idea of 'must be established by a pre-existing church' sounds more like a denominational structure than a Biblical stance. 

That being said, when looking at the practical questions of church-planting, I will agree that in our culture, a new church planted and supported (in finances, personnel, or spirit) by an existing church has a better chance of surviving than a home-church-study without a set pastor. However, that reproducing church is not a requirement in order for the new church to be an 'official Baptist church'.

 

Along those lines, does it matter if a Baptist church calls itself Protestant? If a particular church has in fact developed from Protestant roots, then I suppose the title matches. Overall, though, I don't like Baptists calling themselves Protestants merely because it is (usually) a reflection of a lack of historical knowledge, and this particular bit of misinformation lends itself to people thinking that the Catholic church was the only one in existence before the Reformation. It's worthwhile to nip that bit of false thought in the bud whenever possible.




#388671 Historians Trace The Earliest Church Labeled "baptist" Back To 1609

Posted by Alimantado on 23 September 2014 - 10:16 AM

Baptists are Baptists by doctrine, not by the name itself. So yes, there were Baptists down through the centuries that were not known as Baptists.

 
If Baptists are Baptist by doctrine, or as Jim puts it 'doctrine, belief and practice', then why would it matter if someone wanted to call the church they are part of 'protestant' to indicate that some time in the past that church's early members had been under the yoke of catholicism and had come out from it (presumably at great cost to themselves)? It would be in the same vein as folk calling their church 'independent' or 'fundamentalist'. The important thing wouldn't be where they had come from, but what they had become.
 
Yet the argument on this thread seems to be (and I may have misunderstood it) that one simply can't be a Baptist if one's ancestors or one's particular church's founders were folk who came out of catholicism. If that's true, it means that Baptists are not just Baptist by doctrine, but by lineage also--i.e. you can only be Baptist if your ancestors were Baptist (even if not by name).
 

Baptists today hold to the very same beliefs and doctrines that the first church, under Jesus and His Apostles recorded in our Bible. Scriptural New Testament Churches are started by existing Scriptural New Testament Churches. So saying that some in the Puritan movement left it and adopted the teaching of the ana-baptists only proves that they were not true New Testament churches. Authority has a source, in the case of churches that source is Jesus Christ. Individuals coming out of an obscure sect and taking on the teaching of Baptists cannot constitute a valid New testament Church; there is no authority. But the fact that there were Christians called ana-baptists proves my point that the true church was in existance at that time.

<snip>

So then, they may not have been called "Baptists", but they were Baptists in their doctrine, belief and practice, just as we are today.


In another thread, GraceSaved was explaining her dilemma of not being near a Biblically-sound IFB church. The reaction of lots of people on this forum was to say that she should start one with other believers at someone's home, even if it meant that they wouldn't have a Pastor to start with.

 

Now are you saying that if Gracesaved and the other hypothetical believers had been muslims or a catholics before their salvation, then it would be forever impossible for them to group together as a church, no matter their doctrine, beliefs and practice?




#387952 Sin Nature Or The Result Of The Work Of The Flesh

Posted by No Nicolaitans on 18 September 2014 - 09:42 AM

Works OF the flesh.

 

The "flesh" is a biblical term used to describe the seat wherein resides the inherent inclination to sin. Paul (under inspiration from the Holy Ghost) admitted that he still struggled with his inherent inclination to sin. His flesh warred against his spirit, so much so that he did the things he shouldn't do and didn't do the things he should.

 

Was this inherent inclination to sin solely in his flesh, or was he using that term to describe his nature? When you or I deny something sinful that "our flesh" wants to do, are we denying our flesh...or are we denying the natural inherent inclination to sin?

 

We are PARTAKERS of the divine nature...meaning we've been made to take part in it...it's part of our lives; however, it doesn't have full control. If it did, we would be without sin. And the reason we do still sin is because we also have a part of us that has an inherent inclination to sin...aka...a sin nature.




#387754 Way Of Life - Country Music: A Safe Alternaive?

Posted by MountainChristian on 17 September 2014 - 10:59 AM

:laff cry:  :laff cry:  :laff cry:  :clapping:

 

 

 

I don't like it when country or rock singers release a gospel record. Who is singing matters just as much as what is being sung. 




#387728 Way Of Life - Country Music: A Safe Alternaive?

Posted by Salyan on 17 September 2014 - 09:57 AM

You get back your job, you get back your car, you get back your dog...




#387690 Copy/paste

Posted by 2bLikeJesus on 16 September 2014 - 08:26 PM

Works fine with Google Chrome.  I stopped using Internet Exploder (not a misspell) years ago.




#387589 Looks Like I Have A Day Off

Posted by 2bLikeJesus on 15 September 2014 - 08:11 PM

They are ticketing drivers $1,500 for throwing a lit cigarette from your vehicle.  I think they are letting em off easy.




#386650 Would This Be A Good Church?

Posted by OLD fashioned preacher on 09 September 2014 - 12:07 AM

Does the second church use only the Geneva Bible? It sure sounds like it.

From their statement of faith:

 

Therefore, in our church, we use exclusively the King James Bible for four reasons:

 

(1)    It is based upon superior texts of Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek;

(2)    It was translated by far superior translators than we have today;

(3)    It has used a superior translation technique compared with the versions of today, that is, it has used both verbal (or word) equivalence and formal (or form) equivalence, rather than the false dynamic equivalence of thought only; and

(4)    It has superior theology rather than theological errors in over 356 doctrinal passages, which plague the New International Version and other modern versions.  The King James Bible has been blessed of God since the completion of its translation in 1611.

 

The King James Bible, (without the Apocrypha), will be used by pastors, teachers and those in leadership in all areas of our church and Bible school without exception.




#382672 A Recommendation For Mature Christians

Posted by DaveW on 19 August 2014 - 09:53 PM

I went to the doctor the other day and he said I needed glasses, so I took his.
The next day he rang and said he wanted to see me, but he can't. .......... because I have the glasses!

:lol:

(Victor Borger)


#386626 Why Men Sometimes Don't Understand Women Shopping

Posted by 2bLikeJesus on 08 September 2014 - 08:42 PM

American business and corporate mindset made simple.

 

A Japanese company and an American company decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River.  Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.

On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.

The American's, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat.  A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend
appropriate action.

Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American's had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing.

So the American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.  They advised that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were
rowing.

To prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents, and 1 assistant superintendent
steering manager.  They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder.  It was called the "Rowing Team Quality First Program", with
meetings, dinners and free pens for the rower. 

There was a discussion of getting new paddles, canoes, and other equipment.  Extra vacation days for practices and bonuses.  

The next year the Japanese won by 2 miles.

Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment.  The money saved was
distributed to the Teachers and College professors as bonuses, and the next year's racing team was outsourced to India.

 

To true to be funny... :laff cry:






The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500