Donations for the month of December


We have received a total of $20 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Tom
Tom
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 3,316
Joined: April 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,544
Posts50,745
Members921
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,307
Tom 3,316
chestnutmare 2,864
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,748
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 24
Pilgrim 19
Recent Posts
Sexual harrassment fraud
by goldenoldie. Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:25 PM
Christian Leaders Behaving Badly
by Anthony C.. Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:41 PM
Israel
by Pilgrim. Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:21 AM
Classical vs.Presuppositional Apologetics
by Pilgrim. Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:45 AM
Trying to understand the Confessions
by Tom. Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:29 PM
Question I read
by Tom. Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:04 PM
Yesterday at 02:56 AM Christian Leaders Behaving Badly by Anthony C.
I'm somewhat stunned and numb about past and present accusations against various Christian leaders, whether it be Sproul Jr, Driscoll....and now I'm hearing of CJ Mahaney and Ravi Z.... My concern is when attempted coverups become the true crime.....
https://www.thedailybeast.com/pastor-accused-of-covering-up-abuse-returns-to-spotlight

Just found out about this.... This looks really bad.... I think the last thing people want to hear is what a great person somebody is or of their personal integrity because it reeks of an inability to look at somebody truly objective.... He may be all those things and he may be vulnerable to attack but the blame the victim thing is such a common pratice that any sign of impartiality is truly troubling..... On both sides obviously..... We know the secular media is no friend of the church....


"We have stood beside our friend, C. J. Mahaney, and we can speak to his personal integrity"

35 Views · 2 Comments
Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:31 AM From a George Whitefield sermon on Christmas by chestnutmare
Shall we yearly celebrate the birth of our temporal king, and shall that of the King of kings be quite forgotten? Shall that only, which ought to be had chiefly in remembrance, be quite forgotten? God forbid! No, my dear brethren, let us celebrate and keep this festival of our church, with joy in our hearts: let the birth of a Redeemer, which redeemed us from sin, from wrath, from death, from hell, be always remembered; may this Savior's love never be forgotten! But may we sing forth all his love and glory as long as life shall last here, and through an endless eternity in the world above! May we chant forth the wonders of redeeming love, and the riches of free grace, amidst angels and archangels, cherubim and seraphim, without intermission, for ever and ever! And as, my brethren, the time for keeping this festival is approaching, let us consider our duty in the true observation thereof, of the right way for the glory of God, and the good of immortal souls, to celebrate the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ; an event which ought to be had in eternal remembrance.
~ George Whitefield

17 Views · 0 Comments
Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:01 PM Sexual harrassment fraud by PerpetualLearner
How about the women stick to their God given role for a start:

"... train the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sober-minded, chaste, workers at home, kind, being in subjection to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed: (Titus 2:4-5, ASV)

They are to be homemakers, not housewives. They are to love their husband, and children and make a loving home for them.

What about the proper time line of an actual sexual attack and the reporting?

"If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them to death with stones; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee." (Deut 22:23-24, ASV)

The principle is clear, if you are attacked and/or harassed; you cry out at the time, not 5, 10, 30 or 40 years later! As far as Hollywood goes, everyone knows it's a cesspool of filth and the 'casting couch' is infamous for male as well as female. They made a trade, so take the blame upon themselves. The same for politics, again a cesspool, and those wishing to climb the ladder to power, they make the trade off. This all assumes anything even happened in the first place. In the 1960s when I was a young guy, I had a married woman for whom I'd made a home repair, complain to her husband that I was made a sexual advance toward her, a blatant lie. I was grilled like a criminal at the company and thought I'd lose my job. I could have easily cleared it up by 'outing' myself as the 100% exclusively homosexual male that I was/am; but this was the 1960s, that would have probably lost my job anyway. Then, the latter part of my working life I was in factories where many women worked. They are generally more raunchy mouthed and sexually offensive then the men are. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, which proves the rule. So for me, I don't care if the so-called sexual harassment took place or not; if it was not reported at the time, it should be ignored as having ulterior motives other than correcting a perceived wrong. A couple of modern English translations when comparing Gen.3:16 to Gen. 4:7 have come up with a correct translation of 3:16. From the 2016 edition of the ESV:

"To the woman he said, 'I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.'” The men of the 19th century should have put a 2X4 against the head of that nutcase Carrie Nation when she intruded into their bars with her hatchet. Then men went so far as to give the women the vote in 1920 so they can now be contrary to their husbands with power. Now they are taking over the justice systems and exerting power in legislatures and even running for President. There is no way the USA can survive this continual decline of the society and nation. If any think I am extreme, then explain how facts and truth have changed since the writings of the Presbyterian theologian Robert L. Dabney:

https://www.counter-currents.com/2012/11/robert-lewis-dabney-on-conservatism/ I am amused at the conservatives of today... just how far back are they willing to go to define conservatism? Ronald Reagan who first sent an Ambassador to the Vatican?



45 Views · 1 Comments
Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:55 PM Israel by Tom
Is it just me, am I seeing a lot of extreme views on boards concerning Israel as a nation?
From the Dispensational side, they are super happy about Trump and his exceptence of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Others (not sure what eschatological position they hold to) seem almost anti-Israel. Saying Israel (calling it Zionism) are most of the problem we are seeing in the world today. They say that it is not Muslims that are the problem; it is Israel.
I decided not to participate in any of the discussions; because I am definitely not a Dispensationalist; but I was a little shocked at the ant-Israel sentiment.
Not even sure what to think of the issue; especially coming from so called Calvinist boards, sigh...
Tom

110 Views · 5 Comments
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:34 AM Classical vs.Presuppositional Apologetics by Tom
Apologetics: Classical vs. Presuppositional Apologetics’
One of the arguments that those who believe in ‘Classical Apologetics’ sometimes called ‘two step apologetics’ (not to be confused with Evidential Apologetics) against ‘Presuppositional Apologetics’ is that only in Classical Apologetics does it allow for mediate (knowledge we have about God from creation) and immediate (knowledge we have of God, from God Himself). They make the claim that Greg Bahsen himself conceded this point in his debate with RC Sproul.
Although I watched this debate myself and did not hear Bahnsen concede anything. I thought I would give them the benefit of the doubt until I understand that particular point better. The debate between Bahnsen and Sproul made me wonder if Sproul even understood what the Presuppositional argument was. I was actually disappointed, because I am a Sproul fan. Some (even Presup) people did say the nature of the debate probably played into this, seeing Sproul could not adequately defend his position in the time allotted; whereas Bahnsen was more orderly and knew how to use his time effectively.
As I think about this issue; one of the most used passages of Scripture that those who use the Presuppositional method is Romans chapter one; appealing to creation and how it leaves people with no excuse. So how is this not using both the mediate and immediate? Am I missing something?
From what I am gathering from discussion on these apologetic methods is both schools believe the Bible is the ultimate authority. So the debate center around which method best exemplifies the teaching of the Bible.
Yet, it appears (not sure if they actually do) that the classical school uses the mediate to establish its truth before they go onto the immediate. Whereas in the Presuppositional school, realization that the unbeliever starts with their own world view that interprets everything through it. Thus the Presuppositionalist attempts to show the inconsistencies in their world views; thus shutting their mouths. In this way; they show that a world view must start and end with God. Only a world view based around God’s mediate and immediate knowledge can make sense of anything in life.
I have been following a Facebook conversation on these things and so far the answers given left more confusion than anything else. Having said all this; Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones who was a Presuppostionalist, did not believe in entering these kinds of debates. Instead he said he did not engage the non-believer with the futility of debate because they already know there is a God; because in light of Romans 8:7 “Because the carnal mind is at enmity against God for it is not subject to the law of God, neither can it be.” So rather than deal with the non-believer on science, philosophy or logic. He dealt with them on the “foolishness of the Gospel” (1Cor.1:18-21).
If I understand his point; although he was a Presuppositionalist in theory, he did not believe it was effective trying to shut their mouths. So he would jump straight to the foolishness of the Gospel.
If I understand him properly, I wonder if he makes a valid point? Learning apologetics is quite hard; I wonder if it might be better just to stick with the Gospel?
Yet, by doing this would I be submitting to Fideism? Which sometimes is an accusation that is wrongly thrown at Presuppositionalism?
Better stop there, my brain hurts. whatsgoingonhere

126 Views · 1 Comments
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 18 guests, and 111 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
drewk, patrice, Robert1962, Ron, billmcginnis
921 Registered Users
Shout Box
December
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
663,473 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.053s Queries: 5 (0.011s) Memory: 2.0803 MB (Peak: 2.3398 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-12-12 00:53:37 UTC