Jump to content

wretched

Member Since 31 Dec 2012
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 09:48 PM
-----

#391214 Walking In The Spirit

Posted by John81 on 14 October 2014 - 06:46 AM

It takes decided intention, diligent effort, life long perseverance and a reliance upon the Lord to walk in the Spirit.

 

Many professing Christians choose to coast in their walk with the Lord, but the truth is, there is no coasting in this life. Either we are walking in the Spirit or we are walking in the flesh, there is no middle ground to coast upon.

 

Those who want to be "saved just enough to get to heaven but not enough to be different from others" are deceiving themselves.

 

Walking in the flesh is easy. Make no effort to walk in the Spirit and we automatically walk in the flesh. Sad to say but many Christians are content with spending most of their time walking in the flesh. The get spiritual minded for Sunday morning church but step right back into their flesh walk by the time football starts after church.

 

God calls us to a very high calling which takes diligence and perseverance which most are unwilling to put forth. We are called to be holy, for He is holy. We are called to be perfect even as He is perfect. While we can't attain perfect holiness in this life, that's the mark we are to aim for. We must walk in the Spirit before we can head for that mark.




#390934 Questions For Ifb On Several Issues

Posted by Ukulelemike on 12 October 2014 - 03:55 PM

This mod doesn't have the know-how, so I'm off da hook.

 

   In the time I have been here, there have been many discussions on reformed theology, on both sides, ad while it often devolves into fighting and anger, it is usually because sound biblical reasoning is dismissed off-hand for another's views, or a favorite author's arguments are placed above scripture.

 

I don't need to read Calvin's books, or the writings of Arminus to have a good enough understanding of 'Calvinism' or 'Arminianism", to declare it unbiblical. I invite those whould revisit the subject seek back into the archives and go over the various arguments that have been made there.

 

By the way, it would not be reasonable to insist one cannot understand what it is to be IFB unless they read the writings of John R. Rice or David Cloud-you want to understand it? Read the Bible.




#390868 Questions For Ifb On Several Issues

Posted by No Nicolaitans on 12 October 2014 - 09:17 AM

This IFB believes that Calvinism, in any form, is unbiblical. This IFB also wonders why you continue to promote Calvinism on a non-Calvinistic site.

 

This IFB would tell you that the ESV is translated from corrupt Vatican manuscripts and is therefore...corrupt.

 

This IFB would tell you that music is too broad to cover in a blanket statement. If the instruments take priority over the words (which should be biblical), it's wrong (unless it's an instrumental). If the instruments play music that appeals to the flesh, it's wrong. If the vocals are performed in a way that brings attention to the singer rather than the Lord, it's wrong.




#390549 I Am New Here

Posted by Alimantado on 09 October 2014 - 05:59 AM

Just a little curious, what is a "major evangelist?" 

 

A major evangelist is someone who is an evangelist and has also progressed above the rank of captain in the armed forces. Moustache optional.




#390684 Understanding Hebrews -2

Posted by DaveW on 10 October 2014 - 04:49 AM

1Pe 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

2000 years later and the end of all things which was then at hand has not happened yet - all things have not ended yet......

Why is this guy allowed to promote and teach his rubbish on an IFB site?


#390764 Understanding Hebrews -2

Posted by DaveW on 11 October 2014 - 07:52 AM

Plenty of other false teachers have been banned for trying to lead studies where they push their false doctrine.
He should not be able to lead such a study.
Tame or not, it is false teaching that we all know he holds to, and he us leading this study with the purpose of pushing that false position.


#390761 Understanding Hebrews -2

Posted by DaveW on 11 October 2014 - 07:37 AM

Not ifb...... not equivalent.

Views and positions that are not consistent with this site, nor with traditional ifb positions.

He should not be leading a study on this forum.
This thread, a study led by him, has one single purpose - to promote replacement theology, a theology that is not ifb, nor is it biblical.


#390736 Understanding Hebrews -2

Posted by Steve Schwenke on 10 October 2014 - 10:02 PM

Regarding the dispensational aspect of Hebrews:

 

The Hyper-dispensationalists get fixated on chopping up the Bible into "sections."  The problem with this approach is that no matter how they go "slicing and dicing," there is no perfect mould to fit their scheme.

 

Certainly, from a dispensational point of view, the Book of Hebrews is what we would call a "transitional book."  There are some small portions of Hebrews that simply do not fit the rest of Pauline theology, no matter how much twisting and dodging folks do to get around the fact.  However, the vast majority of Hebrews is a tremendous book detailing the superiority of Christ over the Old Testament scheme, and MOST of it fits very nicely into Church Age Theology.  "Rightly Dividing" goes much deeper that sectioning off books of the Bible, it has to do with Books, chapters, passages, and even at times, VERSES.  I know of places where the proper division is in the middle of a VERSE, or a chapter, or a passage.   

Thus, the hyper-d's overlook and dismiss some tremendous material in Hebrews because they think that "rightly dividing" means allocating certain books to certain time periods.  As a GENERAL RULE we can use this scheme, but it will not fit precisely all the time.  The only group of books that deals exclusively with one time period is the Pauline Epistles from Romans to Philemon.  All of the rest of the Bible can fit MANY time periods.

 

ON the other hand, the position Covenanter is espousing is over-simplified on the opposite extreme.  In his zeal to destroy dispensational teaching, he is attempting to destroy ALL differences between the Church Age and the coming Kingdom of Christ. 

The passages in Hebrews 8 deal specifically with a New Covenant that is EXCLUSIVELY Jewish in nature.  It has NOTHING to do with the Church, and EVERYTHING to do with Israel.  By removing the distinction between Israel and the Church in the New Testament, Covenanter is now forced to do the same thing in the Old Testament.  By doing this, he blithely dismisses 75% of the prophetic passages dealing with a literal return of Christ to this Earth, at which point Jesus Christ will establish a new Kingdom under a New Covenant with Israel ON THIS PLANET (Rev. 20).  The bottom line to all of this is that Covenanter and his like simply cannot handle a LITERAL rendering of these passages.  They privately interpret those passages to erase the distinction between Israel and the Church so that those passages will fit into their mould of (false) Bible teaching. 

 

The Dispensational model is not without its problems, and there is certainly room for discussion on those difficulties.  However, I have never met or discussed these issues with a dispensationalist who was not willing to accept a LITERAL interpretation of Scripture as FINAL.  Covenanter CLAIMS he believes and interprets the Bible literally, but the fact is he does NOT - some of his interpretation is pulled out of thin air, or from an appeal to an extra-canonical source.  When confronted with this truth, he pulls another "smoke and mirrors" act to cover his tracts.  I have personally confronted him on these issues in the past - and he was not willing to admit his error, even when it was obvious to everyone else on this forum.

 

And yet....he is allowed to continue posting to this day!




#390735 Understanding Hebrews -2

Posted by Steve Schwenke on 10 October 2014 - 09:46 PM

John, certainly there is room for Scriptural debate and discussion on end times interpretation of Scripture, however, there must be ground rules involved.  For instance, the preterist view is OBVIOUSLY unscriptural, and not worthy of our consideration. 

Nobody has every single point nailed down, but we CAN eliminate certain propositions from the start - and that is the point that DaveW and I are attempting to make.  Covenanter's entire approach to the interpretation of Scripture is wrong - we have demonstrated this countless times.  Certainly he has truth in his doctrine, but it is leavened with corruption.  If there were absolutely no truth, it would not be palpable to anyone - it is that element of truth that draws others in.  There is just enough truth for a young or unsettled Christian to say, "Well, he is right on Point A and B, so his Points C, D, and E must be correct also."  That is what makes his false doctrine so dangerous. 

If you recall, the woman in Matthew 13 mixed leaven in with the meal.  She had the truth, but introduced leaven (i.e. false doctrine - Matt. 16:11-12; Gal. 5:9) into that meal, and the leaven ruined the entire loaf.  

The seeds of leaven that Covenanter is sowing do nothing but create confusion and doubt in the young or unsettled believer's mind.  It has no place on this forum, in my opinion. 

We have addressed this issue before, and all that happened was that he piped down for awhile, but there was no permanent action taken against him.  So a few months have gone by, and here he is again, pushing his own agenda.  Now he can try to use Hebrews as a platform to put his hooks into the unsuspecting (Matt. 13 all over again!!!), but I for one know what he is up to, so I am not buying into it. 




#389863 Will These Steps To Salvation Save You?

Posted by Jim_Alaska on 02 October 2014 - 11:55 AM

Original Question:

Will These Steps To Salvation Save You?

Answer:  NO.   Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

 

All the man made "steps" in the world have no power to save. It is solely by the power of God's Holy Spirit working in both the sinner as well as the one doing the witnessing that a sinner is saved. The sinner must "believe" predicated upon the convicting witness of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is not drawing the sinner, these steps are of no avail.

 John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

 

I am not trying to be agrumentative here. I just think that too many rely on a formula once they are able to witness to lost people. Just because we can get someone to "repeat after me", or simply agree with our "steps", does not constitute a new birth in the sinner.

 

We must be careful in our witnessing to let God do the saving and simply be faithful on our part to present the Gospel. A profession based on how well we can present a convincing argument does not constitute a true conversion.

 

Unfortunately we see way too many supposed "conversions" by "soul winners" in which the one being witnessed to is never seen again. No resulting baptism, no church attendence, no evidence of any fruit.




#389859 Will These Steps To Salvation Save You?

Posted by Salyan on 02 October 2014 - 11:14 AM

4. FORSAKE: "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord ... for he will abundantly pardon" Isaiah 55:7. Sorrow for sin is not enough in itself, We must want to be done with it once and for all. 

 

 

Look at that. They just added a work in between repentance and faith. They're expecting the sinner to cease from his sin before he has even put his faith in Christ.  :umno:




#389189 Would You?

Posted by Genevanpreacher on 27 September 2014 - 11:45 AM

Laying down one's life, doesn't just have to do with 'dying'.

 

Sometimes it has to do with just stopping what you 'are', and letting someone else 'be'.

 

The Lord Jesus 'gave up his life' before the cross; when he left the portals of Heaven

and gave up his current situation in Heaven, with the Father, he 'gave his life' up and became human.

 

It's not always the obvious, in some peoples lives of them 'giving up their life' for others.

 

For example, think of all the missionaries, from right after NT times, up to recent years,

where godly Christians 'gave up their lives' to enter the field of foreign ministry, as well as

many men of God 'giving up their lives' just to street preach or become pastors in a lost community.

 

That kind of love staggers the mind, sometimes.

 

Makes ya think about 'how much' we really love.




#389181 Would You?

Posted by John81 on 27 September 2014 - 08:51 AM

No, because that would require turning my back on God and that's something I couldn't do.

 

As Scripture makes clear, we need to be busy sharing the Gospel, living for Christ, praying for the lost, praying for harvesters in the field, supporting our church and missionaries, and doing our part to bring the lost to Christ today, while there is yet time.

 

Prior to salvation I specifically refused to be baptized when some family members were baptized (with no profession of faith) because I wanted to go to hell with my friends so I could help protect them from the really bad people I expected to be in hell. Yes, I had a very warped and unbiblical view of hell at that time but my desire was to help my friends. By the grace of God, about a year later I was saved.

 

Scripture says God desires that none go to hell, so for me to purposefully go there, even for the sake of others going to heaven, would be another affront to God.

 

I know the question is hypothetical, but it distracts from the reality that we are called to sacrifice our lives now, right here while we live, for the sake of the Gospel, for the sake of spreading the Gospel. How greatly we fail in this area! How much more greatly may we one day discover we failed?

 

How much of our money do we give for the cause of Christ...and then how much do we waste, spend on our selfish desires, spend on more than we need, etc.?

 

How much time do we spend in prayer for the lost? For missionaries? For our pastors? For laborers for the harvest?

 

So much self-examination we need to do and so much more surrendering our lives to Christ we need to do now, in reality.




#389070 Would You?

Posted by Alimantado on 26 September 2014 - 02:59 PM

Romans 9:3-4 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites

 

Great question. I've pondered it and questions like it for years. To what extent can a person really 'die to themselves' if they are counting on getting it all back at the end, and are ultimately being motivated by self-interest.




#389007 Hypocrisy Left And Right

Posted by John81 on 26 September 2014 - 06:38 AM

A Basket of Snakes
By Patrick J. Buchanan

 

Friday - September 26, 2014
 
"Once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.
 
"War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision."
 
So said Gen. MacArthur in some of the wisest counsel the old soldier ever gave his countrymen.
 
Yet, "prolonged indecision" would seem the essence of the war the president has begun to "degrade and ultimately destroy" the Islamic State.
 
For, following only one night of bombing in Syria, Gen. Bill Mayville, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs, asked to estimate how long this new war would last, replied: "I would think of it in terms of years."
 
"Years," the general said.
 
Yet, though we are already heavily into bombing, the president has no congressional authorization for this war in Syria.
 
Even Republicans are leery of voting for a war in Syria before the November elections. A third of the House GOP voted no to arming and training the Syrian rebels. The Democrats are even more wary.
 
And how are we going to "destroy" ISIS when Obama has ruled out U.S. combat troops and not one NATO or Arab ally has offered to send combat troops?
 
Consider Turkey. With its 400,000-man army, 1,000 planes, 3,600 tanks, 3,000 artillery pieces and self-propelled guns, the Turks, the largest military power in the Middle East, could make hash of the Islamic State.
 
Why have they not done so?
 
Because Turkish President Erdogan detests President Assad of Syria and has looked the other way as volunteers, including Turks, have crossed his border into Syria to join ISIS.
 
Up until now, this NATO ally has been a silent partner of ISIS. And, even now, Ankara has not volunteered to fight the Islamic State.
 
For Turkey is predominantly Sunni, and many Sunni see the Islamic State as a ruthless but effective ally against a Shia threat represented by Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus and Hezbollah.
 
If the Turkish army is not going to intervene in Syria against ISIS, and if Obama has ruled out U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq or Syria, where will the soldiers come from to dislodge the Islamic State from the Indiana-sized territory it has seized?
 
The Kurds can hold Erbil with U.S. air support. Iraq's regime, backed by its Shia militias, can hold Baghdad. But can the Iraqi army retake Fallujah, Mosul or Anbar, from which they so recently ran away?
 
Who are the major fighting forces in Syria who have for years been holding the line against ISIS? Answer: the Syrian army, Hezbollah troops from Lebanon, and Iranians, backed by Putin's Russia.
 
Denouncing the Islamic State for its beheadings of the two Americans and one British aid worker, Obama declared at the U.N.:
 
"There can be no reasoning -- no negotiation -- with this brand of evil. The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force. So the United States of America will work with a broad coalition to dismantle this network of death."
 
Strong words, some of the strongest our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president has used in six years.
 
Yet, for three years, it has been NATO ally Turkey and Arab allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar who have been clandestinely aiding this "network of death." And it has been Assad, Hezbollah, Iran and Russia that have been resisting this "network of death."
 
A year ago, the American people rose up to demand that Obama and John Kerry keep us out of Syria's civil war, specifically, that they not carry out their threats to bomb the army of Bashar Assad.
 
Had it not been for Assad, Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia, the network of death Obama, rightly excoriated from that U.N. podium, might by now be establishing its caliphate, not in Raqqa but Damascus.
 
Before we go any deeper into Syria, Congress needs to be called back to debate and vote on whether to authorize this new war.
 
For this war against the Islamic State seems, for some in that blood-soaked region, not so much to be a war of good against evil, but the first of several wars they want America to fight.
 
For them, the Islamic State is to be destroyed by the Americans. Then the Assad regime is to be brought down by the Americans. Then Iran is to be smashed by the Americans. Everyone in the Middle East seems to have in mind some new war for the Americans to fight.
 
How many such wars are in our vital interests?
 
While, undeniably, the Islamic State has shown itself beyond the pale with its beheading of innocents and its massacres of soldiers who have surrendered, let us not forget that our allies abetted these monsters, while adversaries we have designated as terrorists and state sponsors of terror were fighting them.
 
Lord Palmerston had a point when he said Great Britain has no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent interests.
 
Those interests should determine our policy.
 





The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500