Jump to content


Member Since 07 Aug 2011
Offline Last Active Today, 10:37 AM

#389493 "Ban The Person Above You" Game

Posted by ThePilgrim on 29 September 2014 - 05:36 PM

Ban NN für das Sprechen seiner Muttersprache

#389390 Hypocrisy Left And Right

Posted by ThePilgrim on 28 September 2014 - 11:07 PM

"But I'm glad that ours still has some checks and balances left, lest we have a real king/dictator/tyrant to deal with."

Aren't very many checks and balances left and those are not used very much to control the powerful.  Think of the 2008 banking  fiasco when all kinds of shenanigans took place in the financial and banking sector.  The banks have been and continue to be bailed out and none of the instigators have served a day in prison.  So the checks and balances don't seem to work when it comes to the bad checks and phony balances of the powerful financial sector.  If anybody thinks my calling these people criminals is simply hyperbole or just sour grapes on my part, I can post plenty of names and evidence.  

#389086 Eric Holder Has Resigned!

Posted by ThePilgrim on 26 September 2014 - 08:02 PM

"Before you answer please ponder upon this '' Gods judgement must first begin at His House "


I think you very intelligently answered your own question.

#389076 Hypocrisy Left And Right

Posted by ThePilgrim on 26 September 2014 - 04:10 PM

The actual word that is used to define our government is "Oligarchy": a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

It is a rare occasion when anybody agrees with me but this time I am not alone in my opinion: http://www.telegraph...-concludes.html

#389053 Maple Tea

Posted by ThePilgrim on 26 September 2014 - 12:57 PM

Buttermilk only belongs in biscuits or pancakes or bread.  Yuk!  Why would anyone drink it on purpose?  :popcorn:

#389052 Hypocrisy Left And Right

Posted by ThePilgrim on 26 September 2014 - 12:53 PM

If a persons religious beliefs are not a part of the article, I see nothing wrong as long as the facts are correct.  I the facts are obviously tainted by religious beliefs then there would be a problem.

It is usually not to difficult to tell if it is.

#388958 Sorry No Cameras Allowed Here.

Posted by ThePilgrim on 25 September 2014 - 07:46 PM

Not surprised at all.  If you want somebody to lose control of their ego and become a tyrant, just give them a government job.

#388783 Historians Trace The Earliest Church Labeled "baptist" Back To 1609

Posted by ThePilgrim on 24 September 2014 - 02:24 PM

Since we were first called Christians, why I will settle for being called that.  If a longer label is needed: how about Bible Believing Christian.  I can not help it if other's seem to have spoiled the name with their heresies, Christian is what I am.  


Acts 26:28-29
28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
29 And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.
1 Peter 4:16
16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

#388756 Historians Trace The Earliest Church Labeled "baptist" Back To 1609

Posted by ThePilgrim on 24 September 2014 - 11:37 AM

When one gets the notion in his head that only he and those who belong to his group are the especially anointed messengers of Jesus Christ in their head they begin to sound much like a cult.  :hide:

#388683 Historians Trace The Earliest Church Labeled "baptist" Back To 1609

Posted by ThePilgrim on 23 September 2014 - 01:15 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.


I suppose one can claim to get authority for their church where ever one chooses but as for me I will seek it from Jesus Christ alone.  If I am so led to start an assembly in my home I need not seek sanction from anyone other than God alone.  It is Him I seek to please, not some ecclesiastical organization whatever it's name.

#388542 Last Day Of The Uk?

Posted by ThePilgrim on 20 September 2014 - 11:50 PM

Wall Street and The City of London are all for Scotland staying the way it is so I don't think there will be any trouble there.

#388288 Letter To The Editor: Rick Warren, The Road To Rome, And More Trouble At Biol...

Posted by ThePilgrim on 20 September 2014 - 05:40 AM

As I always say, "My how times change."  Drift.  It seems sometimes that everything just seems to drift.  Nothing ever seems to stay in the same place . . . . just drifts away to someplace else. . . . endless change . . . . never stops.

Thank You Lord that You never drift off to some other place . . . . You never change . . . . yesterday . . . . today . . . . tomorrow . . . . all the same . . . . never change.  Thank You Lord.

#388036 Way Of Life - Country Music: A Safe Alternaive?

Posted by ThePilgrim on 18 September 2014 - 05:42 PM

Another thing about Folk music.  All the traditional melodies are free from copyright and anybody and everybody can use them.  Makes it nice for people who write a poem and set it to music ( I have done several myself).

Simple melodies, simple words, and simple guitar, dulcimer, autoharp, banjo . . . . just good, fun music.  Love it!

#388016 Way Of Life - Country Music: A Safe Alternaive?

Posted by ThePilgrim on 18 September 2014 - 04:50 PM

What's the difference between folk music and country music?

Folk music is the music of the people. . . . music that just plain ordinary folks can sit around the living room or camp fire and enjoy with or without instruments.  Folk music that is enjoyed by country folks in America can be called country music.  However Country, with a capital "C" is not folk music.  Country is just another genre of popular music.  Country is not simple and easy to play and sing sitting around with friends in the living room as folk music is.  Country requires assorted expensive instruments and a lot of talent to perform, if it didn't it would not be a profession for some singers and players.  Folk is simple, Country is not.  Folk is sung for the fun of it, Country is sung for the money.  

#387668 Why Men Sometimes Don't Understand Women Shopping

Posted by ThePilgrim on 16 September 2014 - 05:02 PM

I remember my first Snipe hunt when I was a kid.  The big kids left me holding the bag as they fanned out to chase the snipes toward me so I could catch them in the bag.  Never got any.

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500