Jump to content

Ukulelemike

Moderators
  • Content Count

    4,391
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    164

Everything posted by Ukulelemike

  1. I don't understand it, because doctrinally and theologically, it is complete gibberish. It is like those who say that each day of creation is a thousand years, because in 2Peter 3:8 says that with the Lord a thousand years is as a day, and a day as a thousand years-the two have nothing to do with each other, as one is history, and the other speaks of prophecy. Though at least there, there is somewhat of a reason people mistake them, since both have to do with God and how He understands time, while yours have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. I am just curious of where you get it, because I'd be interested to see if there is any kind of logical joining of these completely disparate things by whoever interpreted it as such.
  2. The received Him by their choice, but the entire thing, salvation, eternal life itself, was completely of God's will, yes. Man could hope and will and try all he wanted but would fail, except that, by His will, God made eternal life available to man. That still doesn't mean that God chooses who will and who won't, it means he made the whole things possible, completely out of man's will. The price was paid once, by Christ, according to God's will, not man's. BUT, man chooses to believe or not, to receive, to respond to God's lift and call. You mistake God's overall work, with being an individual choosing, individual by individual.
  3. King of England, Jacob??? What? I think that was Cyrus, king of Babylon. This is an interesting view, but it makes absolutely no sense in the context you are applying it to. This is a complete and total fabrication that has not a single shred of bearing in reality. As said before, threescore is 60, not 66. None of it makes any sense, save to try to pick and choose random facts to seek to fit a theory. Though I WOULD be interested to know where you got all of it.
  4. While we are not a church plant, we are in an area of very limited numbers. When I began the finances were taken care of by a lady who was very good with it. However they left, due to age, wanting to live near family, so the money was taken over by my wife and I, as we are quite small, and most of the people we deal with in our church have no ability to see to their own finances, much less the church's. As you probably agree, it is not a position I prefer to be in, BUT, since my wife and I, along with three people who aren't even part of our church anymore, are really the only ones who ever give, well, there's not much to work with anyways. We once had a man who wanted a full accounting of the money coming in. He gave a couple times while there, but, again, while no one else was giving, and at this point, he had not for quite some time, I told him I would get him a list of bills and what came in, but he wanted a big accounting, and I told him, not giving himself, that he wasn't entitled to it. This was very shortly before we lost our building due to lack of giving, and I think he figured we were misusing the vast stores of riches that were coming in. Later, he left the church, but some of the younger members were still in contact with him, and he got them all fired up for an accounting of the money. Mind you, not ONE of these people ever gave a dime, even though some worked full time jobs. They said, What do you do with the offerings? I said, What offerings? I asked them, what offerings have you given that I need to account for, and of course, none could answer at all. However, my wife went over the entire last, like, five years of giving, (except what we gave, as it wasn't their business), to show that really, nothing was coming in. The bills were being paid primarily by us, only. They were pretty embarrassed and never asked again. Of course, not embarrassed enough to start giving.
  5. Query: Does I take away from the sovereignty of God to allow His creation to choose life or death? To choose the eternal life obtained, won and offered by Jesus Christ, or to reject said gift and instead choose ignorance and damnation? Is God LESS sovereign in man following by choice, not by compulsion? I do not believe so. In fact, to declare that God CAN'T do that is to take away from his sovereignty. To declare that SOME have had the ability to follow Christ denied them by God, yet for that same God to demand they follow Him or suffer eternal damnation, KNOWING they cannot, by HIS will, do so, would be a great travesty of justice by Him who is the Only Just One. There is a huge difference between demanding someone do something that you know they will not do, and demanding from someone you know they CANNOT do, because you will not allow it. Jesus bid Peter to walk on the water, knowing that Peter, through Jesus' will, could do so, and so Peter did walk on the water...until Peter's will and fears caused him to begin to sink, his will superseding the will of Christ. So Christ bids all come to Him for eternal life, knowing they all CAN, though knowing most will not. Scripture please.
  6. Thanks for that. I was actually answering that with a lot of scripture, but doing it at work, got distracted and never got it finished.
  7. Yes. Jesus lightens EVERY man that comes into the world-He gives everyone born the ight to see and receive-at that point, it is up to us to respond.
  8. Calvinism goes well beyond that. Of course God is to be given full glory for the plan and outworking of salvation; the problem is it then delves into philosophy and declares that man can't be saved before he is regenerated, and that man, because he is dead in sin, cannot, therefore, make a choice to follow, yet I disagree with that, and so does scripture. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. " (Eph 1:13, 14) 1: Hear, 2: Trust, 3: believe, 4: Sealed. Regeneration occurs at 3, believe. It cannot begin at 1. Predestination is through foreknowledge, not declaration. Christ did the work, Christ paid the price, Christ enlightens all men, Christ calls all men to Him, but we choose to answer or not.
  9. When a younger IFB, (I became one in my 20's while in the Navy), I was, of course, brought up in the idea that the tithe was unquestionable, and absolute. I never bothered to question it-of course, I was learning so much new, but didn't do a lot of searching at the time. It wasn't until much later that my father gave me some of his old Bible college papers he had written, since I was preparing to become a pastor, and one the things he wrote was why He believed the tithe was not for today. I read it once and kind of poo-pooed it, but it stuck in my mind and I began to study it out and came to find that he had, indeed, done his homework, and was correct, that the only reason churches teach a tithe today is because they just seem to want that money and it is often easier to obtain by making it basically a matter of "you're stealing from God!', if you don't. The Bible is really quite plain: the tithe was OT, it was, by the law, generally made up of foodstuffs, not money. Before the law there are only two instances of a tithe, or a tenth, and both were by choice: Abraham giving a tithe to Melchezidek, which was only a one time deal, and it came from the things taken in the battle, not his own property. The other was Jacob, and his tenth had a condition attached to it, being that God returned him back to his father and homeland in peace, THEN he would give God "the tenth part', so it wasn't even so much the first tenth, but the tenth part; and we actually never see the fulfillment of this promise and how he did it. so pre-law tithing is very limited, purely voluntary, and each apparently single incidents. After the law we never see one place where it was given in money, gold, silver or any such thing, always food. And it WAS an aspect of the law. The NT clearly teaches freewill giving, as we have been prospered by God.
  10. Is this a specific author you're looking for, or just looking to see if there IS anyone who wrote such? Because if its the latter, you might as well just start buying and reading every book even close to the subject. Myself, I don't know of anyone who has. Maybe the Catholics, because most Baptists don't believe the seventh day was meant to be a day of worship for the church age believers, but I know the Catholics teach a change from 7th day Sabbath to first day Sabbath.
  11. It is kind of moot, if I understand properly what you're asking, 'Did Christ, being resurrected the first day, change the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first'? Is that correct? The sabbath never changed, it Is, and always was, the seventh day. However, it was not always a 'day of worship', as we see them coming together in the synagogues to do. Originally it was set as a day of rest, to stay home and not go ANYWHERE. Apparently that changed, out of necessity, during their time in bondage in Babylon, when the synagogue was invented. As for why we assemble in the first day of the week, rather than the seventh, it is because that is the day Christ was resurrected. While they may not record that as the reason, (of course, their first church met every day), yet within the next century, Christina writers declared that to be the reason, as a perpetual memorial to His resurrection.
  12. The way of eternal life is hardly a secondary issue.
  13. Mostly Southern Baptists, though certainly they are filled with those of other religions, as well as many who are atheists. What does it matter?
  14. "To what dignity are the chosen elevated when the brilliant courtiers of heaven become their willing servitors! Into what communion are we raised since we have intercourse with spotless celestials! How well are we defended since all the twenty- thousand chariots of God are armed for our deliverance! To whom do we owe all this? Let the Lord Jesus Christ be for ever endeared to us, for through him we are made to sit in heavenly places far above principalities and powers. He it is whose camp is round about them that fear him; he is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon. All hail, Jesus! thou Angel of Jehovah's presence, to thee this family offers its morning vows." (Evening and Morning Pg 556) Kind of sounds like Spurgeon taught Jesus was Michael. Or maybe the question is, Did Spurgeon believe and teach that Michael the angel was Jesus Christ?, not an angel at all, but God? Are they one and the same person? Either way, it is incorrect.
  15. I JUST taught on fasting last Sunday night! It isn't a terribly popular subject, but it is such an important thing. It has many benefits to it, and God promises that those who fast in secret, God will reward openly!
  16. You mean in the opinion of Calvinists? Probably depends on the Calvinists-many of them have severe disagreement as to what a true Calvinist even is, or over use of the term, often preferring "reformed", so it doesn't appear to follow a man's teachings, (even thought it does). I suspect many would say that someone who believes they have a choice in the matter, are not saved. I would say, if you are depending on being regenerated before you seek salvation, it might give a question of your salvation, since you are depending on something completely unbiblical to be your foundation for salvation.
  17. I think a lot of us have been through that board. Some are still there, because they hold to the idea that no Bible is infallible, and they use KJV here basically under protest. Anyways, welcome aboard on the board!
  18. Spurgeon believed and taught it, as well.
  19. I guess we all need to choose our hills to fight on, but seems to me that HOW one is saved in the first place is a pretty big hill. Since standard Calvinist doctrine teaches one is regenerated before they are saved, that's plain heresy. But you pick your fights, I will pick mine.
  20. I have taught plenty on the Masons, though there is little presence of them in our area. That wasnt always the case, however: from what my wife tells me, who lived here before I did, the Masons ran the police department on the local Army depot; if you weren't a mason, you didnt get hired. Later, the Mormons took over from them. Of course, they're closely associated. But our local Masonic lodge, like our local LDS 'church', have both shut down, so not much concern with them.
  21. It.absolutely raises to the level of separation, because we are dealing with the foundational doctrine of eternal life. If I say everyone has an equal.ability to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, and YOU say, No, not everyone has that ability, that is a serious issue. I have personally witnessed the agony caused when a Calvinst had a hard time in sin and believed himself not of the elect, and it almost led him to suicide. I would perhaps talk with someone over the issue, but could not fellowship with them if that fundamental issue was in disagreement.
  22. "I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 1:5-7) So, I chose the lounge for this, because I am playing around with some speculation, and don't want to be seen as teaching some strange doctrines. In this passage we see the statement about the angels who didn't keep their first estate, and are kept in everlasting chains until the judgment. Generally, these are understood as one of two things: angels who fell into rebellion with Satan when he fell, or angels who married human women and created super babies in Gen 6. But, what if it is neither? Stay with me now. We know the word "angel", generally means 'messenger', and does not have to refer to a heavenly spirit being, as we see in Revelation 2&3, when referencing the angels of the churches, who are clearly the pastors, or human messengers who care for the churches. In verse 5 above, we see first the example of the wicked people who left Egypt and were destroyed for their unbelief and rebellion; then we see the statement about the angels in Verse 6, then in verse 7, we again see humans, those of Sodom and Gomorrha, destroyed for going after strange flesh. All three are examples of God's judgment on the wicked. Now, certainly angels fit alright here, as even angels who are rebellious will be judged. But what I wonder about is, If Satan is accompanied by HIS angels, his fallen angels, the devils, why aren't they in chains of darkness awaiting the judgment? Why just the particular angels seen here in Jude 6? Why did God cast SOME down for rebellion, but not the others? Not that I am questioning God, mind you. What I was wondering is, What if those angels mentioned here are not ANGEL-angels, but human messengers, or leaders? Perhaps those who led the rebellions against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness, who were killed, the earth opening up for them, might they be considered 'angels', messengers who delivered the message of the people's rebellion to Moses and Aaron, and are, along with those who followed them, reserved in chains under darkness? I guess two things seem odd to me, in the context of the passage: The first, in these three verses, the first focused on judgment of humans, the third, on judgment of humans, while the second, between them, a switch to the judgment of angelic beings-seems out of place in the context. The second, again, being that these angels, if they are, are deemed worthy of immediate delivery to hell and chains, while the others that are the devils, with Satan, are allowed to run rampant in wickedness. Why the difference? Anyways, just the thoughts that ramble around through my head.
  23. There are serious difference between the KJV and the NKJV-it is NOT just updated, and they didn't use a majority of the manuscripts as the KJV translators used. Example:

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...