• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Calling this Pastor

R

RLBosley

Active Member
Steadfast Fred said:
Having watched the entire sermon, i would have to disagree.

The pastor addressed sins that were known to the Church already.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but that doesn't excuse his arrogance, pride and abusiveness of the congregation.

You can rebuke and expose sin without appearing like that.
 
C

convicted1

Guest
Brother Salty, I heard that you once preached with boxing gloves on and said you was going to beaten satan out of all the unregenerates there that day. They said it wouldn't have been so bad if you hadn't put brass knucks on before slipping on the gloves.

:D :wavey: :laugh: :love2:
 
T

Tom Butler

New Member
The church saturneptune and I serve is without a pastor at the moment. We like for our pastors to be straight shooters, but somehow, I don't think that pastor and our church would be a good fit.
 
P

preacher4truth

Active Member
Steadfast Fred said:
Searching the internet (thanks Google!) I have found the preacher, and the entire message.

The Sermon was on May 19, 2013 Morning Service. Go to ibcskitook.com, click Media, then Online Sermons. The full one hour two minute sermon can be viewed there.
Click to expand...

No thanks, I'll pass. :wavey:
 
S

Steadfast Fred

Active Member
I don't believe Underwood.

For one, he says the pastors accusations against him were not true. If that truly were the case, why was he the only one who left the Church and none others in his family? Obviously the fiencee did not leave the Church.

I believe Underwood is the one being untruthful.

Why would Standridge rebuke him for something he was not guilty of? That would make no sense whatsoever. And apparently, the congregation knew Underwood was guilty of what he was accused of. They are still there.
 
A

Arbo

Active Member
Site Supporter
Steadfast Fred said:
I don't believe Underwood.

For one, he says the pastors accusations against him were not true. If that truly were the case, why was he the only one who left the Church and none others in his family? Obviously the fiencee did not leave the Church.

I believe Underwood is the one being untruthful.

Why would Standridge rebuke him for something he was not guilty of? That would make no sense whatsoever. And apparently, the congregation knew Underwood was guilty of what he was accused of. They are still there.
Click to expand...

So the preacher was right in what he did?
 
P

preacher4truth

Active Member
Steadfast Fred said:
I don't believe Underwood.
Click to expand...

I do, and I don't blame him for leaving.

For one, he says the pastors accusations against him were not true. If that truly were the case, why was he the only one who left the Church and none others in his family? Obviously the fiencee did not leave the Church.
Click to expand...

Why would others not leaving prove your point? Many dummies put up with that type of preacher. They are being controlled and lorded over which is unbiblical. He's Mr. "I'm important' when in all actuality we are all nothing.

I believe Underwood is the one being untruthful.
Click to expand...

Yes, we know. What you're really saying is you agree with that display of idiocy on part of the service

Why would Standridge rebuke him for something he was not guilty of? That would make no sense whatsoever. And apparently, the congregation knew Underwood was guilty of what he was accused of. They are still there.
Click to expand...

You're correct, it made no sense whatsoever and you again are making an illogical and erroneous conclusion. You make an assumption that Underwood is the only one to have left. :wavey:

In addition to this, if there was sin (but Standridge is just assuming) he didn't handle church discipline Biblically. Does God lead you to handle things unbiblically?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
P

PeterM

Member
Not that I condone what Standridge said or the spirit in which he said it, but I did have a thought... both John and Jesus called out individuals or groups and said some pretty harsh things.

Publicly identifying someone as a snake/viper or a whitewashed tomb probably wouldn't be terribly well received either, but Jesus and John did these things. Again, if Standridge had issues with people in the church, he ought to have dealt with them privately... but have we created an image of Jesus (nice, pleasant, a gentleman) that we have lost the fullness of His character/persona? And how has that impacted ministry in our churches?
 
S

saturneptune

New Member
PeterM said:
Not that I condone what Standridge said or the spirit in which he said it, but I did have a thought... both John and Jesus called out individuals or groups and said some pretty harsh things.

Publicly identifying someone as a snake/viper or a whitewashed tomb probably wouldn't be terribly well received either, but Jesus and John did these things. Again, if Standridge had issues with people in the church, he ought to have dealt with them privately... but have we created an image of Jesus (nice, pleasant, a gentleman) that we have lost the fullness of His character/persona? And how has that impacted ministry in our churches?
Click to expand...

You are right. If he walked over to where I was sitting and made one of those remarks in front of all of my fellow church members, his tie would have been in a different position as he flew back up to the pulpit.
 
S

Steadfast Fred

Active Member
PeterM said:
Not that I condone what Standridge said or the spirit in which he said it, but I did have a thought... both John and Jesus called out individuals or groups and said some pretty harsh things.

Publicly identifying someone as a snake/viper or a whitewashed tomb probably wouldn't be terribly well received either, but Jesus and John did these things. Again, if Standridge had issues with people in the church, he ought to have dealt with them privately... but have we created an image of Jesus (nice, pleasant, a gentleman) that we have lost the fullness of His character/persona? And how has that impacted ministry in our churches?
Click to expand...
Which brings up an interesting question. Had Jesus or John spoken to those they rebuked privately before the public rebuke? Had they taken one or two witnesses to try to correct the erring ones?

Seems the advice of Matthew 18:15-17 didn't apply in many situations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
S

saturneptune

New Member
Steadfast Fred said:
Which brings up an interesting question. Had Jesus or John spoken to those they rebuked privately before the public rebuke? Had they taken one or two witnesses to try to correct the erring ones?

Seems the advice of Matthew 18:15-17 didn't apply in many situations.
Click to expand...

Good point in some situations. However, looking at the video, I get the feeling he uses this method in all situations. Is it really necessary to stop the sermon and point out everyone nodding off, and walking away from the pulpit? It seems more dramatics than focusing on a situation.
 
P

preacher4truth

Active Member
Steadfast Fred said:
Which brings up an interesting question. Had Jesus or John spoken to those they rebuked privately before the public rebuke? Had they taken one or two witnesses to try to correct the erring ones?

Seems the advice of Matthew 18:15-17 didn't apply in many situations.
Click to expand...

Not really. The context you are using isn't the context of the church. You err yet again. Rightly handle the Word of Truth.
 
Q

quantumfaith

Active Member
Steadfast,

Isn't it nice to have someone to always let us know when we err and who can always tell us with absolute certainty how to handle and divide the Word of Truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top