Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Ukulelemike

Moderators
  • Posts

    4,632
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    216

Everything posted by Ukulelemike

  1. This right here is the best line. It stands alone in its value and importance for every believer.
  2. I posted the following in another post. but thought, perhaps, it might make for an interesting discussion on its own. "As I have been reading through the old posts herein, (this was in the Cloud Vs. Chappell topic) it gets me thinking: Even Lighthouse in San Diego, my old alma mater, as it were, has begun to allow some small amount of altered CCM into their music, an issue that greatly saddens me. I don't know how much, but I have heard it. And it gets me thinking, often the pastor himself takes a stand against such, but as a church grows into a massive size, the pastor cannot possibly be hands-on in every area as he ought to be, and has to entrust certain things to others. It is here that there enters the great danger of sneaking in this sort of music. I think that's what happened at Lighthouse, when a new music minister took over. All this makes me think that, maybe churches ought to consider, How big should a church become, before they begin to consider breaking into multiple assemblies, over just one church with thousands? Ultimately, the Pastor will answer for what has been allowed there, and if he can no longer have hands-on control, at least to a reasonable point, should that church, perhaps, become two churches? Or three? Ought we be in the business of building megachurches? The huge church in Jerusalem was never meant to remain that large, but they also had 12 leaders, 12 pastors, if you will, not one or two, and eventually it broke up into many scattered churches all over Asia and the middle east. So, should churches consider breaking up, rather than building huge monoliths, which history will tell us, ALWAYS eventually fall to error?"
  3. As I have been reading through the old posts herein, it gets me thinking: Even Lighthouse in San Diego, my old alma mater, as it were, has begun to allow some small amount of altered CCM into their music, an issue that greatly saddens me. I don't know how much, but I have heard it. And it gets me thinking, often the pastor himself takes a stand against such, but as a church grows into a massive size, the pastor cannot possibly be hands-on in every area as he ought to be, and has to entrust certain things to others. It is here that there enters the great danger of sneaking in this sort of music. I think that's what happened at Lighthouse, when a new music minister took over. All this makes me think that, maybe churches ought to consider, How big should a church become, before they ought to consider breaking into multiple assemblies, over just one with thousands? Ultimately, the Pastor will answer for what has been allowed there, and if he can no longer have hands-on control, at least to a reasonable point, should that church, perhaps, become two churches? Or three? Ought we be in the business of building megachurches? The huge church in Jerusalem was never meant to remain that large, but they also had 12 leaders, 12 pastors, if you will, not one or two, and eventually it broke up into many scattered churches all over Asia and the middle east. So, should churches consider breaking up, rather than building huge monoliths, which history will tell us, ALWAYS eventually fall to error?
  4. Yes, lots of words not in scripture, like sovereign, yet the idea is present. Church, of course, is in there, but it is translated from a word meaning assembly, though church is fine, so long as we understand it to mean what it properly does. Other terms I generally don't use, like trinity, I prefer godhead, which is the same thing, but the biblical term, or Lord's Supper, rather than communion, etc. They aren't necessarily bad words, just not found in scripture.
  5. I have attended a few, though its been a few years, particularly since my wife got sick. Now that she has passed on to glory, I will try to attend maybe one per year, if I can. To be honest, I used to hear pastors at some of the meetings I attended list off all the conferences they planned to attend through the year, and wondered at times, just when did they actually pastor their churches, as it seemed they would go to 20-30 per year. I have been invited to a Preachers retreat in TX this November, designed for pastors who have gone through particularly rough trials recently, and I was referred to go by another pastor friend of mine, just a getaway with other preachers who've been through the ringer, as it were, recently, to edify and strengthen one another. And to shoot stuff, lol.
  6. I can't bring up the video, so I can't answer the initial query, but I enjoy listening to a site called Preach the Bible Classics, produced by North Valley Baptist Church, where they have compiled old sermons from IFB pastors, like John R. Rice and others. Some I like, some seem at the end of their time and give little more than a couple verses and stories, with little actual teaching or preaching. So it's a mixed bag. I also listen to my old pastor, Doug Fisher from Lighthouse Baptist Church in San Diego, and many of the associate pastors from there. Being a pastor myself, I need to get some preaching from other trusted sources.
  7. in fact, according to U.S. Life Expectancy 1950-2021 | MacroTrends, in 1950 the average life expectancy was 68.14 years, in 2021 is it78.99 years. The trend has been a constant rise since 1950.
  8. "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you." (1Cor 7:27, 28) Clearly here, it was Paul's opinion, and I firmly believe it was based on an excellent understanding of the mind of the Lord, that if a man is loosed from a wife, they ought not remarry, so they can set their mind on the things of God, BUT, if they remarry, they have NOT sinned. The term of being loosed from a wife clearly doesn't refer to being loosed by the death of the spouse, because that was earlier dealt with in some length-this clearly must speak of divorce. And this probably also has to do with having been married to an unbelieving spouse who has chosen to depart, and Paul says a brother or sister is not bound in such a case. Therefore, when my wife, (passed away now) and I married, both being believers, but both having been left by unbelieving spouses, neither of us were under bondage in such cases, and being properly loosed, we were free to remarry. And both our former spouses had committed adultery against us before the marriages ended, so there's that, as well.
  9. It's alright, their day of reckoning will come: "And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth." Rev 11:18
  10. I recommend you look at Lighthouse Baptist Church in La Mesa, on Skyline Blvd. An excellent KJV church, godly pastor, very active in local evangelism, military ministries, large Spanish ministry.
  11. The Church in the Wildwood: Promotes the false idea that the 'church' is the building the actual church meets in, rather than just a sanctified building. I agree with the Battle hymn of the Republic: In all honestly, however, it is called "the battle hymn of the REPUBLIC", meaning in truth, it isn't designed to be a hymn to or of God, but for the State, so in that, it is at least honest in its title, though speaking a lot of false doctrine, (as has been mentioned before, as well as other problems), it ought to be avoided. Another song uses the same tune, called the Circuit-Riding Preacher", which I much prefer. Brighten the Corner Where You Are: Maybe not a lot of bad theology, but overly-simplistic, too repetitive, more allegory, no clear mention of Christ, the gospel, salvation, God, just too vague.
  12. Exactly! Forgiveness! To be blameless! This is my whole point on divorce-too many treat it as unforgivable, yet even if this woman had had five husbands and divorced from each, she can be forgiven. Divorce and remarriage is not necessarily wrong, even by scriptural standards. Here's another incident to consider, (yes, it is OT, but there it is). "And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives. Then all the congregation answered and said with a loud voice, As thou hast said, so must we do." Ezra 10:10-12 Now, yes, by the law, they were 'strange wives", they were of other nations, something specifically forbidden by the law. HOWEVER, isn't the argument many make that, even if a believer marries an unbeliever, somehow it becomes okay in God's eyes, and they ought never divorce, even though it is specifically forbidden to be unequally yoked by NT standards? In the NT, granted, it is dealt with, that is the unbeliever departs, let them depart, a brother is not under bondage in such instances-therefore, the believer who is abandoned and divorced by an unbelieving spouse is not bound to that person, and thus, should be able to marry again.
  13. The only way one can be "blameless" is if they are born again and all their sin and blame is under the blood of Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:" (Eph 1:3,4) Are we holy by our own effort? No, we are holy because we are in Christ. So also, we are without blame, because Christ paid for our sin and took away our blame. 1Cor 1:8 "Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." It is Christ that will make us blameless in the day of the Lord. We cannot, through our own efforts, be blameless.
  14. Curious as to how we understand what Jesus meant here: John 4: 15-18: "The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly." So Jesus, apparently, by His own words, recognizes that this Samaritan woman has had 5 husbands, and is currently with a man that He, himself, differentiates, for some reason, as NOT her husband. IF we are recognized as married only once, (unless five of her husbands have all died), why does Jesus recognize all 5 as husbands? And why not the current one? I realize that all we can do is speculate, (ie, all 5 died), but if not, why does He recognize them all as husbands? I am not an advocate of divorce, I read the paper put forth, which lays out all the reasons in the typical manner, but I disagree with some of the interpretation, taking simple scriptures and putting a spin that isn't necessarily there. for instance, clearly, believers are NOT to marry unbelievers-but if we choose to ignore God's command there, and do so, does that mean that God just shifts His position on it, and blesses that unequally-yoked relationship, just because WE chose to marry outside of His will? Would not, then, that instance make acceptable the divorce from that unsaved person, particularly if they chose to leave, because we are not under bondage to that unsaved person, and make us free to marry within His will? And, at the end of the day, is divorce and remarriage the truly unforgivable sin, as some, especially IFBs seem to view it? I knew a pastor that told a divorced man that he could do no kind of service in their church, because he was divorced-sit down, shut up, pay your tithe, and that's it. Is this the way it is supposed to be? I don't see anything like that in scripture. If an immature believer marries an unsaved person, later as the former grows in Christ, and the latter doesn't, and chooses instead to depart, is that person not to be forgiven of their sin of marrying outside the faith, so that they might marry a godly believer? Of does God spiritually mark them with an "A" and leave them unforgiven for all time?
  15. My church is the only KJV church, and IFB, for 45 miles one way, 60 miles the other way. Sometimes travel is necessary to find a good church.
  16. Man, I don't know where you all go to church, or what kinds of churches you attend, but this has never been my experience. I spent ten years single after my first wife passed, and never had any issues with anything being taaght specifically for any age group. Now I am a pastor, and I started out single, and am now single again, (as my second wife passed away 3 weeks ago), and I have always taught doctrine that is for everyone individually. I mean, yes, I teaching some things geared toward those married, or youth, etc, but that's because there are teachings in scripture specifically geared toward those married, or toward young people, or old people, but most doctrine is written for everyone. I couldn't imagine a church that just teaches for group a or group b, and everyone else is excluded. You need to find better churches.
  17. Really, it is less "KJV" specifically, but the line of preservation. The TR has actually been translated into many, many different languages, all the way back to the early second century, including native American languages, Asian, European, etc. Yes, preservation takes time to get it around, to everyone, to every language and group, which is why we are still waiting. As well, especially over the last 30-40 years, the internet has made the different translations and languages much more accessible. But often, so long as his word is available in the language of, say, wide-spread trade, (as in Greek in the first century), many all over have read and understood that language well enough to have the word accessible to them. I can tell you, from being in the Navy, I've been all over, and most people spoke English, at least well enough to get the gospel.
  18. I have always likened the idea of biblcal "elect" or "elected" to the human idea of elect or elected. It means to be chosen, but generally, the one chosen has thrown their hat in the ring, seeking to be elected. I'm not aware of any president or government official being elected against his will, with no intent toward that election. I believe this basic idea is the same in Christianity, except that in this case, ALL who seek to be elected are elected, but I do not believe anyone is elected without being willing to be so. Even Paul, chosen by God to be an apostle, had an opportunity to reject, had he wanted. On the road to Damascus, when the voice said he was Jesus, Saul could have rejected the idea as being instead a trick of Satan, as the Pharisees had when dealing with Christ. Jonah was chosen to go to Nineveh as a prophet and he could have easily chosen to remain in the fish's belly to die, rather than follow the command of God.
  19. I have. A very nice fellow, strong believer in Christ, but somehow got the idea, and he never really explained why, that he wasn't part of the elect, and it drove him almost to suicide. And because he could not let go of the flawed system, it finally drove him away. I have been in contact with him lately, and he now believes he is elect, and feels better, but again, could not give me an answer as to why.
  20. Psa 119:89 "LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." I am curious, in what language is God's word forever settled in Heaven? If we are to believe that preservation is only in the original languages, (and thus, really, only then in the original autographs), then we must consider the language in which it was settled forever in Heaven. Greek? Hebrew? Proto-Hebrew? Or some heavenly writing? Since there are no existing copies of the autographs, that we are aware of, then the doctrine of preservation can't be of any use to anyone outside, maybe, the first 40-100 years of their writings, or less, lf we consider the wear and tear to regular use documents. The very meaning of "preservation" is "to guard, watch, watch over, keep". If Hos word, which clearly is written for all men of all times, is only preserved in the original language and autograph, it is pretty worthless 2000 years later.
  21. 12 times in scripture it is revealed that Jesus rose, or was to rise, on the third day. The only explanation in Mark 16:9 is a misplaced, or misunderstood comma, (punctuations are not inspired scripture). So if we took it as written originally before the addition of the comma, it would say "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene out of whom he had cast seven devils." Since above that verse, we see that they came to the tomb early on the first day, it means plainly, "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils." That agrees with scripture, it is not correcting scripture. And perhaps when added the comma was fine, but by our understanding today, this agrees with scripture that says He rose ON the third day, though probably just before the end of the third day, but still at a time later than His death, meaning He still fulfilled three days and three nights.
  22. Oh, I'm not saying they didn't want more, just scripture only seems to indicate that, of the many signs done by the Apostles, tongues was the only one specifically given for Israel of the church by prophecy. That's not to include all the miracles of Jesus, or the arrival of John, just speaking of the church age sign gifts. Jesus' signs and miracles were to prove His identity as the Messiah, but the sign gifts of the apostles were given to prove the authenticity of the church as a work of God, and the tongues were the only one prophesied as being specifically for Israel. This is what I meant, though again, I may be incorrect, but that's who I read it.
  23. I am a Trump supporter, and thought, as a President, he was one of the best, and was never given the chance to really do for the country what he hoped to do. I also believe those who opposed him and hounded him continually specifically to not let him work for the country will pay one day. That being said... I agree that the Lord ordains the powers that be. Trump wasn't a perfect man, he wasn't the messiah and possibly isn't even born again, as he seemed to approach Christianity much the way he does secular success. I believe Biden is president now, that even IF they cheated to get him in, the Lord allowed, or even ordained it so, and it is HIS reasoning as to why He did so. If they cheated to get Biden in, I am comforted when I consider what happened to Athaliah in Israel, who murdered all the royal seed, (except for missing one, preserved by the Lord and His priests) and usurped control of the throne, but only for a time, and was eventually taken and put to death, even as she screamed that it was treason. So, knowing the Lord ordains, and we are to pray for those he has ordained to the powers that be, I ray for him and the administration, for their salvations, for their blessings, and their wisdom to be of God. I am not a Calvinist by any means, but i DO believe that through even our choices, which God knows beforehand, His will shall ultimately be accomplished, so I need not worry for the future, no matter who is President.
  24. I believe, though I may be wrong, that the only sign specific to the Jews, was tongues, as it was given as fulfillment of prophecy, a prophecy actually AGAINST Israel, outlining their stubborn unbelief. (1Cor 14: 20-22 & Is 28:11&12) The other signs went out to the Gentile world during the time of the Apostles, but tongues always seemed to need to have Jews present. Like in the case of Cornelius and the Italian Band, they spoke in tongues, but it was Peter and his fellows, all saved Jews, who needed that sign for them to fully embrace that Jesus had granted salvation to the gentiles the same as to them. But I wouldn't argue it out, that's just what it seems to me at my reading. Otherwise, I do believe that the signs and miracles are indeed over, though, as you say, the two witnesses will do many signs and wonders, but I think they, in this case, would qualify as apostles, sent from God on a specific mission, as the signs in the book of Acts are referred to as "signs of an apostle" by Paul. (2Cor 12:12). As for Matt 10:23, I think the Lord spoke it not just to them, but to ALL who would read and pay heed to His words through the years, as applicable to those who would be alive in that time, remembering that He himself admitted that He didn't know the time of His return, only the Father. But knowing His words would be recorded, He wrote them to whosoever would read and hear.
×
×
  • Create New...