Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Ukulelemike

Moderators
  • Posts

    4,660
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    217

Reputation Activity

  1. I Agree
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from Napsterdad in How often do you attend church in person?   
    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.
  2. Like
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from HappyChristian in Something I've seen in a lot of Baptist Churches these days that is disturbing   
    This, of course, speaks to the importance of repentance in salvation. The lost must understand the reality of sin in their lives, and the need to be willing to reject sin, (not sins, as this is the act that come after salvation, the fruit meet for repentance), because it is sin that is taking them to Hell. And with a prepared heart at salvation, the Spirit and the word will bring about that change as part of being saved. 
    I don't believe we can, or should, deal with the specifics of their sins, when leading them to Christ, but the reality and consequences of SIN, as the whole, and when this is done properly, when born again, they are better prepared to deal with their sins.
  3. Like
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from Danny Carlton in Why do we allow women to sing in church   
    Why do we allow women to sing in church? Interesting question. 
    The passage in context deals with teaching in the church, particularly WHO is teaching; clearly, women are not permitted to speak in teaching the church in a general sense, as the role of authority has been given to the man; they are to learn in silence. But singing, as in congregational singing, or even specials, (which I personally believe ought to be done sparingly,) are not in that context, but are more about general edification of the church, and the command was that we sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs to ourselves to others, with no command to specifically male or female, thus it is a general command to all believers. This is why women are allowed to sing in the church. 
  4. I Agree
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from John Young in HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?   
    They are not two creation stories, man, they are merely the same with differing amounts of details. 
    Chapter 1 is an overview of the entire creation week, God as creator, creating everything, while chapter 2 gives greater detail, specifically into day 6, with YHWH God beginning His relationship with Man. So we have the details of God creating man, placing him in the garden, setting a boundary for him, presenting the animals to him, both to name them, and the see that none of them are suitable as a help meet for Adam's needs, (as well as giving Adam the opportunity to see God create one of each kind of animals and bird, since the bulk of them were created before Adam was, thus refuting any possibility that Satan might convince him otherwise-like evolution), and the forming of the Woman from Adam's rib. 
    One, God as Creator and his creation as a whole, two, God as Father dealing with His children. One account, two different thematic specifics and details.
    As to the age of the earth, and the Bible as a science book, that's true, it isn't meant to be a science book, but it is meant to be a factual book, and it is full of good science. And Genesis taken at face value, is clearly meant to be taken literally as history, and even the terminology spells out that the days were literal days, evenings and mornings, and that there is no possibility for a gap anywhere there, when the Lord established the Sabbath, He gave, as one reason, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."  Clearly we see here that IN SIX DAYS, everything, everything was made, heaven and earth, and ALL that in them is, which would have to include the angels and all heavenly beings. Everything. In six days. That leaves no room for a gap, no room for long ages, or day/ages, or theistic evolution.
    They are not two creation stories, man, they are merely the same with differing amounts of details. 
    Chapter 1 is an overview of the entire creation week, God as creator, creating everything, while chapter 2 gives greater detail, specifically into day 6, with YHWH God beginning His relationship with Man. So we have the details of God creating man, placing him in the garden, setting a boundary for him, presenting the animals to him, both to name them, and the see that none of them are suitable as a help meet for Adam's needs, (as well as giving Adam the opportunity to see God create one of each kind of animals and bird, since the bulk of them were created before Adam was, thus refuting any possibility that Satan might convince him otherwise-like evolution), and the forming of the Woman from Adam's rib. 
    One, God as Creator and his creation as a whole, two, God as Father dealing with His children. One account, two different thematic specifics and details.
    As to the age of the earth, and the Bible as a science book, that's true, it isn't meant to be a science book, but it is meant to be a factual book, and it is full of good science. And Genesis taken at face value, is clearly meant to be taken literally as history, and even the terminology spells out that the days were literal days, evenings and mornings, and that there is no possibility for a gap anywhere there, when the Lord established the Sabbath, He gave, as one reason, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."  Clearly we see here that IN SIX DAYS, everything, everything was made, heaven and earth, and ALL that in them is, which would have to include the angels and all heavenly beings. Everything. In six days. That leaves no room for a gap, no room for long ages, or day/ages, or theistic evolution.
    They are not two creation stories, man, they are merely the same with differing amounts of details. 
    Chapter 1 is an overview of the entire creation week, God as creator, creating everything, while chapter 2 gives greater detail, specifically into day 6, with YHWH God beginning His relationship with Man. So we have the details of God creating man, placing him in the garden, setting a boundary for him, presenting the animals to him, both to name them, and the see that none of them are suitable as a help meet for Adam's needs, (as well as giving Adam the opportunity to see God create one of each kind of animals and bird, since the bulk of them were created before Adam was, thus refuting any possibility that Satan might convince him otherwise-like evolution), and the forming of the Woman from Adam's rib. 
    One, God as Creator and his creation as a whole, two, God as Father dealing with His children. One account, two different thematic specifics and details.
    As to the age of the earth, and the Bible as a science book, that's true, it isn't meant to be a science book, but it is meant to be a factual book, and it is full of good science. And Genesis taken at face value, is clearly meant to be taken literally as history, and even the terminology spells out that the days were literal days, evenings and mornings, and that there is no possibility for a gap anywhere there, when the Lord established the Sabbath, He gave, as one reason, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."  Clearly we see here that IN SIX DAYS, everything, everything was made, heaven and earth, and ALL that in them is, which would have to include the angels and all heavenly beings. Everything. In six days. That leaves no room for a gap, no room for long ages, or day/ages, or theistic evolution.
  5. I Agree
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from Martyr_4_FutureJoy in How Old Is The Earth   
    Why don't we just do this:
     
    Gap theorists, please proivide the clear verses that prove a gap. Don't give us your interpretation or your explanation, just give the clear scripture that gives us a gap.
     
    For the proof against it, I provide ALL of Genesis 1, into Genesis 2, as taken at face value, disproves a gap. Seven days, six of creation from "God created the heaven and the earth", to "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." 
     
    I also provide, at the giving of the Sabbath, in Ex 20, one reason for the Sabbath was the creation week: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."   Ex 31: 17: "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."  
     
    In SIX days, the earth, the heaven, specifically meaning not just heaven as we think it, but literally the space to put eveything in, and the sea. Six days, no room for anything before it.
  6. Like
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from Gud4U in Satan does not exist!   
    Accepting our error is never easy, yet, especially as a new believer, it is very important that we at least consider the possibility we MAY be in error at times. I have been born again since 1972, and a pastor for 19 years, but I still know I am human and subject to error. Glad to see you have learned that truth-it helps keep us honest and humble, but also should make us eager to always be in the word, to seek better understanding and greater wisdom in Christ. 
     
    Welcome back.
  7. Like
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from Jim_Alaska in Satan does not exist!   
    Accepting our error is never easy, yet, especially as a new believer, it is very important that we at least consider the possibility we MAY be in error at times. I have been born again since 1972, and a pastor for 19 years, but I still know I am human and subject to error. Glad to see you have learned that truth-it helps keep us honest and humble, but also should make us eager to always be in the word, to seek better understanding and greater wisdom in Christ. 
     
    Welcome back.
  8. I Agree
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from TheGloryLand in Why did God change our diet   
    Is that in reply to my reply? If so, I would ask why.
  9. Like
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from trapperhoney in Why did God change our diet   
    God made the official allowance of the eating of meat after Noah and his family left the ark. I suspect, if it was common, to some extent, to eat meat before that, the Lord wouldn't have had to say much. And if they were eating meat before the flood, and it was a sin and a reason for bringing the flood, I don't suspect the Lord would have then allowed it. 
    But the main problem is, the Bible is completely silent about it IF people were eating meat before the flood. If it never occurred to them, because all they ate, or needed to eat, was plants, there's no reason to assume they would have. 
  10. I Agree
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from trapperhoney in Why did God change our diet   
    When did Adam and Eve eat meat? The Bible says nothing about them eating meat, Adam tilled the earth, he was a gardener, as He was created to be. "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;" (Gen 3:17, 18)
    Cain was a gardener, as well. Abel raised flocks, but we don't see anywhere that they ate of the meat-we know he used them for sacrifices, and they probably used the wool for clothing, and possibly drank the milk, but we see nothing about anyone eating meat until after the flood, and that was probably because, during the flood, much of the minerals in the soil were washed into the oceans, and the best way to get the vitamins we needed was through the animals, which produced those vitamins from the depleted soils much more efficiently than we could. 
  11. Like
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from PastorMatt in The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants   
    My personal preference is dresses and skirts: I find them to be much more feminine and womanly. My wife, bless her, never wore pants in her adult life, even when working the farm, milking the goats, slaughtering animals, whatever. In winter she might wear sweatpants under her skirt, but that was it. Oddly, it was, before she was saved, a homosexual friend that convinced her that wearing dresses and skirts was more womanly.  
    But again, while we do see the issue of men not wearing that which pertains to a woman, and vise-versa, we do need to consider how that fully plays out. Proper pants, looser-fitting, comfortable and neat, can be fine on a woman in the right circumstances and times. But it is true that in most societies, for hundreds of years, pants have generally been considered men's clothing, and dresses, women's clothing.  I believe we ought to seriously consider: What will best bring honor to God in my decisions? How far should the gap be made between male and female in the area of clothes, considering God created us male and female and expects us to show that clearly in all areas, including hair length and clothing styles. What will glorify God, not please my flesh?, that is what the real question is.
  12. Thanks
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from TheGloryLand in Why did God change our diet   
    When did Adam and Eve eat meat? The Bible says nothing about them eating meat, Adam tilled the earth, he was a gardener, as He was created to be. "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;" (Gen 3:17, 18)
    Cain was a gardener, as well. Abel raised flocks, but we don't see anywhere that they ate of the meat-we know he used them for sacrifices, and they probably used the wool for clothing, and possibly drank the milk, but we see nothing about anyone eating meat until after the flood, and that was probably because, during the flood, much of the minerals in the soil were washed into the oceans, and the best way to get the vitamins we needed was through the animals, which produced those vitamins from the depleted soils much more efficiently than we could. 
  13. Like
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from trapperhoney in Divorce and Remarriage   
    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?
  14. Like
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from BrotherTony in Something I've seen in a lot of Baptist Churches these days that is disturbing   
    This, of course, speaks to the importance of repentance in salvation. The lost must understand the reality of sin in their lives, and the need to be willing to reject sin, (not sins, as this is the act that come after salvation, the fruit meet for repentance), because it is sin that is taking them to Hell. And with a prepared heart at salvation, the Spirit and the word will bring about that change as part of being saved. 
    I don't believe we can, or should, deal with the specifics of their sins, when leading them to Christ, but the reality and consequences of SIN, as the whole, and when this is done properly, when born again, they are better prepared to deal with their sins.
  15. Like
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from Jim_Alaska in Taliban Fighters Enter Kabul   
    There could never be a peaceful transition or removal of US forces, unless the Afghani people are willing to stand and fight. They're conditioned to either being cowed by fear of the Taliban, or protected by America. And when the chips fell and the time came to stand, having been armed and trained, they dropped everything and ran. 
    Our own founding in America is a good example: we had to reach a point where we we so tired of being trod upon, we were willing to die to make a change. Until the people of Afghanistan are willing to do the same, nothing will change. Get our people out and let them receive the recompense due for their unwillingness to stand. When they're tired enough, they'll stand for themselves. Or die trying.
  16. Sad
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from Jim_Alaska in When Does One KNOW When It's Time To Leave The Church They're Attending?   
    I have only left one church, and that was due to blatant dishonesty of the pastor toward me. I may have stayed to work it out, but it was about a very personal and difficult issue I was going through, and his dishonesty made matters worse. Later, I was glad to have left, as I found him to be a very controlling and legalistic pastor, more concerned in some areas with appearances than substance. 
    Most who have left the church I pastor have never spoken to me, just left. One family left because we had no programs for their kids: I told him stay and help that happen, but they wanted something already running, so they left. One left because my wife worked, (we had no kids and I didn't have any problem with it) and he felt it was a bad fire example to his kids. Later his wife went to work.
    An older couple left because they disagreed with my stand against babbling tongues. Didn't want to discuss it or open the Bible, just, nope, and they were gone. One left because I wasn't willing to have community baseball games to attract kids. And thought I was mismanaging the offerings, (no one gave, there were no offering except what my wife and I gave).
    But most never said anything.
  17. Like
    Ukulelemike reacted to BrotherTony in Does the Rapture of the Church happen Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib, or Post Tribulation?   
    That was their position exactly from what I could gather from the sermon....can't believe a seminary graduate could be so confused.
  18. Like
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from Jim_Alaska in Cloud Or Chappell   
    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?
  19. I Agree
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from Martyr_4_FutureJoy in Calvinism or Arminianism? How do you answer?   
    "But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust." 1Tim 1:8-11
  20. Like
    Ukulelemike reacted to BrotherTony in Church Size   
    The church I grew up in went from having just under 300 people every Sunday to having over 2K people very Sunday in just a few short years. It brought in many new people and many new challenges that I don't believe the pastor was totally able to handle. Even the associate and assistant pastors couldn't really control a lot of what was going on at that point. Some CCM was being introduced in the youth department, and that was finally "nipped in the bud" by the associate pastor. That brought a lot of tension between the youth and associate pastor. The youth pastor finally left to take another church. The church purchased land to build a new sanctuary, but as other "challenges" popped up, and scandals began to show up in not only the congregation, but showing up in the paper and Christian school the church had started as well, the church decided to pass these problems on to other churches. The membership started to take a hit, many prominent members leaving for other, more contemporary churches. When my family moved to Ga from Illinois, the church was running only 600 people. that continued to dwindle down and is now between 100 and 200 people. I believe it would have been advantagous for our church to have started other churches instead of having so many people in the service. There were several men who were qualified to pastor, but our pastor didn't see the value in losing members to new plants. I've never liked the idea of mega-churches. There is always something lost when an elderly pastor tries to keep up with all that's going on in a huge church, even with associates and assistants.
  21. Like
    Ukulelemike reacted to SureWord in What Are the Biblical Warnings about Government?   
    This is a tricky question because under these governments in the Bible nobody had the right to vocally disagree with the government (well, you could but you'd probably lose your head), protest, "redress of grievances", no elections were held except among the elites, no constitutional rights (although, a Roman had special rights beyond a non-Roman).
    It's true a lot of our freedoms are an illusion but for the most part we have a right under our form of government to oppose on many matters but ultimately a vote among people was to settle the matter. Unfortunately, votes don't matter anymore or at least half of Americans think that. When people think the game is rigged is when the violence comes. Remember the old saying, "Perception can be reality".
    There's also no doubt there are two sets of standards in America now which can be observed on a daily basis. What the standard of law is now, except in very extreme cases, is whatever is politically expedient for those in power and their wealthy/influential supporters. 
    My opinion, for a believer, it comes down to testimony and saving your own neck. By saving your own neck is you have to decide if your civil disobedience will get you or your family unnecessarily harmed. Not every hill is worth dying upon. Example: Paul could have spoken up about the evils of slavery but would it realistically have changed anything? It probably would have gotten him an early exit from this world and gotten many other Christians harmed. So, better yet, teach subjection to your master and being a testimony of the gospel for him to see so he may be saved.
    Our main goal in this life is not demanding our rights but being a testimony for Jesus Christ. 
     
  22. Like
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from BrotherTony in What Are the Biblical Warnings about Government?   
    This right here is the best line. It stands alone in its value and importance for every believer.
  23. Like
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from BrotherTony in What preachers do you listen to? Are they heretical?   
    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.
  24. I Agree
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from Disciple.Luke in Are there "Cult-like" groups of Baptists still alive and well out there?   
    What I meant was, in context of sometimes being wrong in spiritual matters, that none of us have it all figured out yet. Like, there are biblical truths and things we can still learn, and none of us are above correction or challenging.
     
    And if JB Henry did, indeed have it ALL figured out, well, I guess at some point he no longer needed to study his Bible. 
  25. Like
    Ukulelemike got a reaction from Andy in How often do you attend church in person?   
    Every time the doors are open...of course, I OPEN those doors, soooo.....
×
×
  • Create New...