Jump to content

ThePilgrim

Member Since 07 Aug 2011
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 11:33 PM
-----

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

Posted by John81 on Yesterday, 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.




#397317 Paul Craig Roberts Interview

Posted by John81 on Yesterday, 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.




#397298 Paul Craig Roberts Interview

Posted by Invicta on Yesterday, 03:59 PM

Yeah. The Cubans are real thrilled about that "talking."

 

So should the Americans be.  If they had talked year ago they may not have communism there today. After all you not only talk to China, we make all our goods there, despite the fact that the ruin the peasants, pollute the atmosphere, and ruin our economies.  In five minutes time there is a Panorama programme about Apple factories in chine it purports to show workers falling asleep a their desks because of the long hours they work.  I intend to watch it.

 

Sanctions only make those countries more bitter and anti those who impose them.  The only time I can remember sanctions working was in Southern Rhodesia, and what happened?  We got Mugabe. 




#397272 Questioning One's Belief Or View Of Scriptural Meanings

Posted by Ukulelemike on Yesterday, 09:21 AM

I think one issue in this, is that when we deal with spiritual things, they tend to be extremely close to our hearts, and thus, to stand opposed to one's strongly-held convictions, unless the person has a remarkable amount of grace, will often result in anger, offense and backlash. I think anger can certainly be appropriate, because, well, Jesus was angry at times with those who thought they understood but didn't, as was Paul, Peter and others. Jesus called Peter "Satan"; Peter, I recall, gave Simon the former sorcercer a resounding chewing out for trying to buy a power he had no authority to have.  Sometimes we CAN be angry, yet we must always endeavor to "sin not." And its a great sin, I think, to declare someone not saved because they disagree on how one understands something, saving for having yto do specifically with salvation. We need to remember that not everyone is where we are, and when someone gets saved, the devil is there to seek to pervert their knowledge if he can, get us following the wrong people.

 

I followed, for a while, Jack Hyles' ways of thinking, was even convicted to go into service for Christ under his preaching, yet today, I distance myself from him, because of things I have since learned. I used to be a quick-prayerist, used to be a pre-trib rapturist, (not the place for that discussion). And once I would fight for these things which I have now, after more study and prayer, repudiated in my life.  Yet I was saved before and I am saved now, because Jesus Christ died for my sin and paid the price I owed, and by faith, through His grace, I received eternal life through Him.




#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.




#396565 ...honour The King,

Posted by Standing Firm In Christ on 09 December 2014 - 02:27 PM

I cannot honor Obama in any way at present.  Perhaps if he trusted Christ the answer would be different.

My Bible says that those that God puts over us are terrors to the evil, and not the good.

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Romans 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Romans 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Romans 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Romans 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Obama is against all that is God.  He has clearly demonstrated it.  His office is not ordained of God.  Rather, it is allowed by God.  God wants a people who will have Him as their authority.  Instead, they, like ancient Israel, wanted a king to rule them.  God gave them what they wanted.  He has allowed America to have what they wanted. 

Sadly, that which they wanted has proven to not be that which they needed. 

No, based on the fact that God's appointed rulers are terrors to the evil and not the good, I can emphatically say that God did not give us Obama so that we could honor Obama. 




#396105 We Are At War. . . . Again

Posted by HappyChristian on 05 December 2014 - 01:28 PM

Mm, could be. But I'm not so sure that's the reason. I think he's planning a run, and it is part of the procedure for those running to get out the big sticks. 




#395953 Way Of Life - Dolly Parton

Posted by John81 on 04 December 2014 - 06:58 PM

HC, I think he means by "bifocals" are Christians who try to view life through the "worlds eyes" and also through "Gods eyes" instead of getting rid of the bifocals and viewing everything only as God sees it.  

That's how I understand the meaning as well.




#395948 Way Of Life - Dolly Parton

Posted by 2bLikeJesus on 04 December 2014 - 05:37 PM

HC, I think he means by "bifocals" are Christians who try to view life through the "worlds eyes" and also through "Gods eyes" instead of getting rid of the bifocals and viewing everything only as God sees it.  




#395697 Pope Says It Is Wrong To Equate Islam With Violence

Posted by Alimantado on 03 December 2014 - 09:10 AM

Walk into a gathering of IFBs and announce you are a "proud, gay, Baptist" and you will quickly discover whether the true meaning of words can be held to or if corrupted use taints them to the point of being unusable in a right way. :icon_smile:

 

Gotta agree with John and others on this one. I guess I've always had a pragmatic approach to language--as far as I'm concerned words are there to get your meaning across and so if the popular meanings of words change, which they do, you have to change your usage if you want to communicate what you mean.

 

Most of us use the word 'due' in sentences like 'cancelled due to rain', don't we? Here's what my 1965 edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage has to say about that:

 

 

Has due to, using the weapon of analogy, won a prescriptive right to be treated as though it had passed, like owing to, into a compound preposition? May we now regard as idiomatic such sentences as ... Due to last night's rain play will be impossible before lunch? ... The prepositional use of owing to is some 150 years old, but of a similar use of due to there is not a vestige in the Oxford English Dictionary (1897); in the 1933 supplement it is said to be 'frequent in U.S. use', and in 1964 the Concise Oxford Dictionary tersely dismisses it as 'incorrect'.

 

To comment on something Mike said: Is someone 'repudiating' the fundamentalist part of IFB when they drop the word itself? Not necessarily--in fact you could argue that they are staying loyal to the concept by trying to find the clearest words to express it.

 

I do agree with the point that we shouldn't drop terms just because they have negative connotations. If the negative connotations come from a correct understanding of the idea/message, then no problem. Does the word 'Christianity' do that? I think so, broadly. But with 'fundamentalist', I don't think folk anymore associate that word with staying true to fundamentals or foundations. I think these days they apply the term synonymously with 'extremist', in the sense of one who takes an idea and exaggerates it. Might be wrong...




#395453 Pilgrims & Baptists: The Little Known Connection

Posted by John81 on 01 December 2014 - 07:07 PM

And are we not the same? We should be a little more protective of our areas, if we aren't.

I don't want JW's or Mormons or even Catholics in my region.

If Baptists are the originators of 'freedom of conscience' toward 'religion', maybe we should repent.

It sure has brought a bunch of 'hooplah' to what the scriptures really teach, and has opened our country

to all kinds of trashy religions such as islam, and budhism, and even the 'satanic churches of america'

(not capitalized for disrespect), as well as a host of others.

[Just a thinkin' out loud]

It should have been obvious that eventually the "freedom of religion" amendment would become a problem, but at the time it would have very difficult for the Founder's to not have something like this. It might have been good if they had tried to confine the freedom of religion for Christians but that too would have opened up a whole can of worms the Founder's didn't want to, and rightly couldn't deal with.

 

In our fallen world there is no way to come up with a perfect government. Some Christians act as if democracy is God's divine government but that's far from the truth.

 

What's not often discussed, and is moot now that the central government has usurped and changed the meaning and application of the Bill of Rights, is that the First Amendment only applied to the central government. Each State was free to establish or regulate religion within their own borders as they saw fit. Some States were already doing this and continued for some time afterward.

 

Had the Founder's said the nation was to be Christian only, that would have left the door open for debates and eventual hostilities to determine which Christians were true Christians and which were not. The same would have occurred had the Founder's said America was going to be a Baptist country. Naturally non-Baptists would have revolted and there would have been disputes between various Baptists over which Baptists were "true Baptists".

 

Considering 90+% of the people considered themselves to be Christian, and those of a wide variety of types and stripes, there had to be a measure of freedom guaranteed at the national level. Since the vast majority of those "Christians" were secular Christians, not born again Christians, there was no way a truly Christian nation could be established.

 

While I would have called for at least a bit of restrictive language to the freedom of religion amendment even if it were there it wouldn't have cured everything. The Founder's did what they had to do in order to gain a nation through compromise.




#395213 Why Create A Problem?

Posted by John81 on 29 November 2014 - 07:29 PM

One summer we had the police down here over a half dozen times because someone kept calling them claiming our dog didn't have water, food, shelter or shade. The first time it wasn't a big deal, but when they kept coming back and it should have been obvious from the street that the same food and water pans were still in place, the dog house was clearly visible, at least part of the dogs area had shade during the entire day.

 

Finally, the sixth time the police showed up I asked them how many times does someone have to make a false complaint before the police do something about them. The office said he thought he knew who was calling (I know he knew, this is a small town, I knew who it was too, a busy-body older lady and her spinster daughter who would drive around town looking for something to complain about). That was the last time the police stopped by to check on our dog.

 

When I was 16 someone set some leaves on fire near a power pole in town. I didn't know anything about it as I was about 10 miles away at a friends house. When I got back to town another friend and I went riding our bikes around town and I got stopped and accused of setting the fire because some old lady said she saw me walking down the sidewalk right before the fire started.

 

First off, back then I didn't walk anywhere. Secondly, I hadn't even been in town when it happened and earlier in the day when I was i town I was at home and went straight from there to my friends place, driving my truck, about ten miles away.

 

Some people just like to think they know stuff, want to be involved in things, are super snoopy and have wild imaginations. Then there are some who just want to cause trouble.

 

Unfortunately, the police have to respond to all these reports. In the case in the video, had the officer and/or the man out for a walk got hot headed or mouthy that encounter could have turned ugly real quick.




#394842 Pilgrims & Baptists: The Little Known Connection

Posted by John81 on 26 November 2014 - 08:11 PM

Pilgrims & Baptists: the little known connection

 

NASHVILLE (BP) -- If not for a Baptist church split, the Pilgrims might never have come to America.

 

Sort of.

 

John Smyth, who often is credited with being the first Baptist, pastored a church where many of the Christians who later came to be known as Pilgrims were members. But when Smyth began to argue with the future Pilgrims over church government, they formed another church under the leadership of John Robinson. In 1620, a portion of Robinson's congregation sailed to Plymouth, Mass., aboard the Mayflower.

 

Following the split, Smyth became convinced that the Bible teaches believer's baptism and launched the Baptist movement.

 

"Most people don't realize how closely the Pilgrims and the first Baptists were related. John Smyth and [Plymouth Colony governor] William Bradford knew each other, and in fact Smyth pastored the church where many of the Pilgrims were members before they left England for Holland and then sailed to America," Jason Duesing, provost at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, told Baptist Press in written comments. "The world of English Separatism was very intertwined. Those that became Baptists were a formative part of the story that led to the first Thanksgiving."

 

Smyth and the Pilgrims both emerged from a movement in England known as Separatism.

 

In the late 1500s and early 1600s, the Church of England, which was controlled by the British monarch, was Protestant in its doctrine but largely followed Catholic worship practice. A group of Christians known as Puritans objected to Catholic rituals and thought worship should only include elements taught in the Bible. Many Puritans tried to reform the Church of England without leaving its membership, but some radical Puritans separated from the state church altogether and formed what historians call Separatist congregations.

 

Being a Separatist could be trying. Many were imprisoned and some were even executed for their beliefs.

 

A forthcoming Baptist history textbook from B&H Academic titled "The Baptist Story" explains, "In an effort to curb the growth of Separatists, a law was passed in April 1593 requiring everyone over the age of 16 to attend the church of their local parish, which comprised all who lived within a certain geographic boundary."

 

Failure to obey the law "for an entire month meant imprisonment," B&H authors Anthony Chute, Nathan Finn and Michael Haykin wrote. "If, three months following an individual's release from prison, he or she still refused to conform, the person was to be given a choice of exile or death. In other words, the established church and the state were hoping to be rid of the Separatist problem by sending those who were recalcitrant into exile."

 

Faced with the choice of exile or death, most Separatists opted for exile, including about 40 who ended up in Amsterdam with their pastor, Francis Johnson.

 

In 1608 a second Separatist church traveled to Amsterdam pastored by Smyth. At first the two congregations fellowshipped with each other. Their pastors had known each other since Johnson served as one of Smyth's tutors at the University of Cambridge, according to The Baptist Story.

But conflict emerged when Smyth took issue with the Johnson congregation's distinction between pastors, teachers and ruling elders among its leadership. Smyth believed Scripture combined the three positions into one office, the pastor/elder, and he said every church should have multiple elders or pastors. This and other differences led to a break of fellowship between the two churches.

 

The doctrinal conflict also contributed to a split in the church led by Smyth -- though historians disagree about whether the church split occurred in England or the Netherlands.

 

John Robinson led a faction of about 100 members from the Smyth church who eventually relocated to the city of Leiden and became known as Pilgrims, famously moving to America and landing on Plymouth Rock in 1620. Smyth soon came to believe that only followers of Jesus should be baptized and administered baptism to himself and his congregation by pouring. Later Thomas Helwys assumed leadership of the congregation, which some regard as the first English Baptist church, when Smyth sought to join a Mennonite church in the Netherlands.

 

Years later, when Bradford recounted the Pilgrims' journey to America as well as their celebration of the first Thanksgiving in 1621, he noted their interaction with the Baptists.

 

Among the members of an early Separatist church, Bradford wrote in "Of Plymouth Plantation," was "Mr. John Smyth, a man of able gifts and a good preacher, who afterwards was chosen their pastor. But these afterwards falling into some errors in the Low Countries" -- a reference to the congregation's adoption of Baptist views in the Netherlands -- "there (for the most part) buried themselves and their names."

 

Despite the Pilgrims' unfavorable view of Baptists, Duesing said they should be remembered with thankfulness this Thanksgiving.

 

"This congregation of 'pilgrims' had already endured the arduous journey of leaving England due to ... persecution from the established church, yet, a section of them desired still to travel further," Duesing said. "Life in Holland was difficult for English expatriates, and for some a prosperous future both for the church and in terms of economic and social survival, seemed dim. The Mayflower group determined to leave ... for New England, then, in part to continue to have the freedom to establish their church separate from the state, but also to do so in an environment that gave more potential for long-term survival. The idea of America seemed worth another arduous and costly journey for these reasons."

 

As Bradford wrote, the Pilgrims also hoped to be a part of "propagating and advancing the Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world."

 

In another connection to Baptists, many of the Pilgrims' descendants -- the New England Congregationalists -- became Baptists during the First Great Awakening of the 1730s and 40s.

 

All Christians, including Baptists, should study the Pilgrims, Duesing said, because they were "a heroic group who sought a better life for their children and grandchildren centered around a church faithful to the New Testament and positioned for seeking the advance of the Gospel."

 

http://www.bpnews.ne...nown-connection




#394141 Way Of Life - Hating The Rapture

Posted by Ukulelemike on 20 November 2014 - 04:30 PM

Are you referring to the Second Coming or the catching away of the Church (slang is Rapture)? Your Scriptural references apply only to the former and not the latter. You remember the Scriptures dealing with the catching away of the Church, don't you? You know the whole thief in the night; the hour no man knoweth, two in the field, one taken; etc etc etc.

 

If you want to be here for the trib my friend, I recommend you collect and study every doomsday show on the discovery channel you can find. You will need it or just surrender your head without any attempt to evade and survive.The idea that believing in a mid or post trib/pre-wrath catching up, means one 'wants to be here for the trib' is error. No one in their right mind would want to be, but when one's study finds no clear passages of scriptuire that says otherwise, and the only really clear scripture declares it to take place just prior to the outpouring of God's wrath AFTER the tribulation, then what else can we do? By the way, it isn't TV shows and movies or works of fiction I will seek to, but to the Bible. Not much chance to survive and evade, at least not for long. In fact, most WILL die, because it will be given to the Antichrist to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. I suspect there will be far more going up first, from the grave, than "we who are alive and remain".

 

It would be a shame if you are the only born again person prior to the Lord coming in the air not spared from this great tribulation. Who will you talk to about being left behind? It will be lonely for you. (I am poking fun-please forgive) Maybe not as lonely as you believe.

 

Of course, if you are born again, you won't be here whether you have been deceived into mid or amil or not. Hey to each their own I suppose but it amazes me that folks can actually confuse the differences between the two events in Scripture. Still haven't seen the scripture that proves this out, that Christians won't be present for the tribulation time.

 

But hey, apparently there are diverse group of religious folks on this site supposedly being lead by the Spirit in their study of the Scriptures and almost none of them agree on much of anything, even repentance unto salvation. Can't argue that.






The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500