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.
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
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
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.
Notice how they lay the entire blame for tensions upon Putin. Long before Putin was in office the US and EU determined to treat Russia like a defeated foe, sent "helpers" into Russia that looted their economy, made promises that were subsequently broken, and rather than dismantling NATA once the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact were gone, they expanded the military alliance in ways threatening to Russia.
The idea current tensions are due to Russian annexation of Crimea flies in the face of the facts. Aside from all the things mentioned above, it was a joint US/EU subversive operation inside Ukraine designed to topple the legally, democratically elected president but giving money, aid and support to neo-nazis and others willing to protest, riot and cause mayhem that set in motion what happened with Crimea and what's gone on since that time with Ukraine.
Now the US and EU are making more threatening gestures toward Russia and some wonder why Russians see the US and EU as enemies?
I read an article a few years ago where the neo-cons argued that Russians military capability had greatly declined and they believed most of Russians nuclear weapons were not being maintained and could not be used to strike at America if America were to strike Russia first with a nuclear strike. They maintained that any Russian nuclear counter attack to an American first strike would be minimal and the losses and damages "acceptable".
And yet many on the Right think only the Dems are dangerous in American politics!
Well, gotta say after a quick skim it looks good to me! I read their youth information. The name at the end - Jerub Metham. If that is who works with the youth, I know him a little. I know his brother better. Jerub came here to college (as did his brother).
That's basically the way prophesy is dealt with. We develop or learn ways of viewing what we read and that colors the entirety of our conclusions.
Do time references always have a literal, definable set or do some mean something other than what a more general and literal reading would indicate? Does "shortly" mean in a short time or in this case does it mean an indeterminate time period that could extend to thousands of years? How about the thousand years? Is this a specific, literal thousand years or a case where that term simply means a long period of time? Do 70 weeks of years actually mean 70 weeks of years or does it refer to 69 weeks of years followed by an indeterminately long weeks of years until finally one of those weeks can be said to be the 70th? Does our view of all these flow consistently from one to the other or do we have different takes on one than another or each? How we interpret this determines the course of the rest of our interpretation of prophecy.
Most admit we don't have set dates for all the books of the Bible. Some can be more clearly timed than others, and for those which have no clear time, clues are looked at to come up with a guess. As with all matters using clues, including law enforcement, the clues themselves are often open to speculation and various interpretations. This leaves us with circumstantial evidence to base our decision upon and we can't make a 100% statement based upon circumstantial evidence alone. This leaves us with the problem of some seeing the circumstantial evidence pointing to one thing (or date) and others to another. Where one lands on this will determine how they view the prophesy in question.
We have two centuries of varying views on several points of these matters. We also have two centuries of seeing one view dominate and then fall from favor to be replaced by another until that falls from favor and another view takes center stage until...
We should be careful in these matters, especially in how we relate to our brothers/sisters in Christ concerning such. A valuable lesson should be learned from those men of Jesus days on on earth who knew the Scripture front to back and were, in their own minds, 100% certain they understood the prophecy of the coming of Christ but were found to be wrong. Even when faced with the evidence right before them, they failed to see past their already determined views to the fact they had been mistaken.
Search the Scriptures and hold to what you believe the Holy Ghost leads you to, but leave room for instruction and make room for love of the brethren whether they agree or disagree with our take on the matter.
From my experience with such I would have to agree there are those who are saved but remain babes in the faith and live as such. Scripture says there will be some who basically just barely make it into heaven; in that they are saved but nothing beyond that as what they did with their lives is burned up.
As Bro Garry mentioned about when he was saved he received no discipleship. The same was true in my case as well. It wasn't until some time later that the Lord brought a good friend into my life who helped disciple me, introduced me to his fine Baptist pastor, and it was at that point I really started to grow in Christ.
I think if a person really has a heartfelt desire to learn of the Lord and grow in Christ, the Lord will bring such about. In my own case, I know I hungered for growth in Christ, and I tried on my own, but it was the Lord working things together that made it happen.
For some people, they don't have that hunger or desire, which is why they seem content in their wayward churches and their minimal Christian life.
I just recently posted my salvation testimony on this site, and as you will read in it, when I was led to the Lord I was not discipled in any way and it was years before I found an IFB church. Was I not saved before I found out that I was Baptist? Of course not, I was simply a baby Christian and still ignorant of much of God's word. At this stage in my life, I no longer consider myself a baby Christian, and it is hard for me to imagine being comfortable sitting in a RCC service. The Holy Spirit would be having a fit inside of me, and I am tuned into His leading enough now that I would not be comfortable at all. By your account, I will hope that she is just like I was in my early years as a Christian, saved but ignorant about the word of God.
I heard a news commentator earlier talking about how pressure is mounting on Obama to send weapons and other assistance to Ukraine. He also said Obama will be visiting a neighboring country to show American support. There were also calls for making Ukraine a NATO nation which would mean America and all other NATO nations would be obligated to go to war with Russia even if Ukraine provokes such a war.
One hundred years after the start of the First World War and it seems many have learned nothing. It was unwise treaty alliances and quickness to go to war that brought about that devastating war. What should have been a local or small regional conflict erupted into WWI and years of death and destruction which ended with more foolishness that set the stage for yet another World War.
I was shocked one time when visiting family to hear good preaching at a Methodist church. The pastor had been the pastor there for 54 years, and was still preaching the same as when he started. I guess the Methodist church wasn't always the horrible mess it is in today. So, don't give up. It doesn't have to say "Baptist" on the sign to have a good pastor leading the flock.
Biblically that doesn't work, but for some reason there are some who post here espousing various "gospels" with different means of salvation. Totally unbiblical, totally dangerous, totally a false teaching that shouldn't be tolerated.
I know that I am new here, and I surely do not want to start right out by stepping on any toes, so this is me...being careful.
As a general thought on the idea of dispensations and not a specific attempt at any particular division, ..
God dealt with Adam before the fall differently than he did after the fall ...
God dealt differently with Abraham than he did Moses ... (Moses received the Mosaic Law, Abraham did not)
God dealt differently with Israel in the Gospels than he did in the Old Testament ... ("It has been said ... but I say unto you...")
God dealt differently with the Gentiles and post resurrection church than he did with the pre-crucifixion believing Jews ... (the entire book of Galatians)
God will deal differently with those in the millennium than he is with the church today ...
How we view and divide these dispensations may be open to discussion and even disagreement, but isn't throwing out the entire idea of God dealing with man differently in different periods a little difficult? All men are, and have always been, saved by grace through faith, regardless of dispensation. I assume that we are all in complete agreement on that. Some by looking forward to the coming cross (that they did not even fully understand) and some by looking back at the cross. (That's me!) But there surely have been a number of "periods of time" when God's approach to presenting this Gospel of Grace to men has been unique to that epoch.
Or have I completely misunderstood the question and simply given you a brief moment of unintended entertainment?