Ukulelemike

So far, Pennsylvania isn't doing it, but primarily because Jillenstein can't raise the 7 million for the recount there-but she isn't giving up! She's going to federal court to try to force them to do it. Meanwhile, I believe Wisconsin is doing a recount, which so far has only netted Hillary two more votes than before and Trump one more, so Hillary made i vote gain overall. Oddly Stein and johnson both picked up quite a few more, but I suspect anything they geain will be statistically meaningless.
If i were from michigan, I'd be pretty mad, because they spent three weeks making sure of their count because it was so close, before they formalized their results, giving it to Trump by over 22,000 votes. So I am guessing they just about did a hand count to make sure of their numbers. To have doubt cast on them, after their work, would aggravate me if it were me.

We all do that, I suspect.

I don't remember if we have hashed this out here, though we haven't lately and I am interested to see what others believe.
Question: Was Simon the (former) Sorcerer, a true, born-again believer, or was he a false convert?
There are two primary schools of thought on this: That Simaon WAS indeed, born again, but in error. This is my view. I believe this because 1: the Bible makes the simple statement:
     "But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:...But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done." (Acts 8:9, 12&13). This statement of his salvation doesn't appear to be a statement of opinion, but a simple declaration of fact: "Then Simon himself believed also..." I see nothing in this statement to bring any doubt as to his salvation, a true rebirth.
However, of course, we also know that he foolishly thought to purchase the power of the Spirit, and he is soundly rebuked for it, and warned that he is in the gall of bitterness and the bond iniquity. To many this is taken to say that he is unsaved, but I disagree. I believe that this is an excellent picture of someone who has come out of where Simon had been: he was a sorcerer, he used sorceries, and anyone familiar with such things will tell you that to gain more power, money is usually involed-higher spells cost m,oney-talismen of power cost money. Money=Advancement in one's arts. Now, Simon is a new believer, and how many of us have ever known of a new believer, still immature in the things of God, fall back into old habits of sin, because they just don't yet know any better? I can think of, well, just about ALL of them that I have known. This was his thing, so he just apparently thought it was the way it was done. no one would argue that what he wanted, the power of the Spirit of God, was a BAD thing-we SHOULD desire the gifts to do the work of God-his problem is trying to get it using his old ways.
Now, why was Peter's rebuke so severe? I believe it is because it NEEDED to be severe, because Simon needed to realize the dangerous ground he was walking, even by accident. Any immature Christian can be easilt led into great error simply by not rebuking sin and error when it comes about. So Simon was rebuked soundly for his sin, for it WAS sin, and dangerous sin, at that, sin which could cause others to fall as well,seeing as they were used to following him. Simon needed to see what a weak, powerless man he was, to keep him so. So he was rebuked.
I also see his salvation in his humble acceptance of the harsh rebuke, " And Simon answered and said, Pray ye for me to the Lord, that none of the things which ye have spoken come upon me." Some have said that the fact that Simon didn't pray himself for repentance, proves he didn't really repent, but again, knowing new believers and immature Christians as I do, they often tend to be quite afraid to pray, not quite sure how to, and having to face God for their error can be hard, so that he asked Peter to pray for him, both shows he recognized Peter's aughority as an Apostle, and that it was a good thing to have a godly man pray for him. Do not all of us seek to have godly prayer warriors pray for us, along with our own prayers?
So I see in Simon a weak, immature Christian falling back to his old ways to try to obtain something good, though not his, and unintentionally falling into wickedness that could be very bad if not immediately checked. And especially I see a humbled and repentant man after rebuke.
The other view is that he wasn't saved, and fell back to sorcery, mingled with false Christianity, and continued in his ways, because apparently there are some books that say such.
So what are your views on this?   

I think your assessment is well thought out and accurate.
In addition, it sure makes me wonder at our own reactions to sin even among the newly saved. If one just received Christ one minute ago, that they will believe everything shown to them in God's Word from that point on and will want to obey (doesn't mean they will succeed in obedience) but they will want to. I think this passage proves this point. Peter's rebuke is Scripture.
The parable of the sower comes to mind. By coddling, not preaching against the "world" and sin, we try to make those seeded on bad ground stick which is a waste of time. If their heart was good ground, they will stick....Period. This is one of the root problems with easy believe-ism IMO (whether IFB or emerging). And easy believe-ism always goes hand in hand with lukewarm preaching. The Bible considers any preaching that falls short of losing your entire interest in anything at all that is temporal as lukewarm.
I also often wonder if there is a correlation between tares (Matthews 13) and Church discipline. Someone truly born again can and will "take" Scriptural rebuke and try to repent (whether successful the first time or even the 100th time is irrelevant). Those given over to satan for the destruction of the flesh does not mean they were saved, it says "that the spirit MAY be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" but THROW THEM OUT OF THE CHURCH. In every church "disciple" example of the NT I can see nowhere where the Lord distinguishes beyond a doubt that these are saved people. In the local church, sure; but saved?? He also explains that tares will be in the local church. I think Matthew 13 is all about tares from the parable of the sower to the mustard seed, leaven and the tares, parable after parable all dealing with tares among the wheat and all parables expound upon the parable of the sower. It is clear as day to me that the first three "grounds" are lost BUT IN THE local church.
I think we pamper new Christians so much that it almost makes their new life no big deal at all. The fact that they just got spared from eternal damnation should be the only coddling they need and that now it is time to grow in the Word. Off with the old and on with the new.
I think we have gone so long living and teaching the lie that we are to avoid only "established" sin in this world that we have created generations of tares with mental do and don't checklists. Remember, the religious lost attempt to avoid what the world calls sin but they love the world itself with it trappings and money and prestige and ambitions and goals and sports and entertainments.
I believe lukewarm Christians are tares (religious lost). They know all the basics of the Gospel and the growth rituals and the sin do's and don'ts after "salvation". But understand nothing of losing their life in this world. Problem is they only know what they know in their heads and not in their hearts. I believe they surround us in NT churches but only God knows them for sure. I mentioned it before under the title "replacement theology".
I wonder if more Peter-esque rebukes would expose them momentarily?? I wonder if a preacher preached the sermon on the Mount every Sunday morning, night and Wednesday would there be anyone left in the pews after a month? It all boils down to Matt 7:24-27. If a preacher would preach the Sermon on the Mount in detail with illustrations it would run the tares and most of the tithes right out of that building....guaranteed.
That is why they won't or worse yet, they just don't get it themselves and may be tares.
 

I don't remember if we have hashed this out here, though we haven't lately and I am interested to see what others believe.
Question: Was Simon the (former) Sorcerer, a true, born-again believer, or was he a false convert?
There are two primary schools of thought on this: That Simaon WAS indeed, born again, but in error. This is my view. I believe this because 1: the Bible makes the simple statement:
     "But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:...But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done." (Acts 8:9, 12&13). This statement of his salvation doesn't appear to be a statement of opinion, but a simple declaration of fact: "Then Simon himself believed also..." I see nothing in this statement to bring any doubt as to his salvation, a true rebirth.
However, of course, we also know that he foolishly thought to purchase the power of the Spirit, and he is soundly rebuked for it, and warned that he is in the gall of bitterness and the bond iniquity. To many this is taken to say that he is unsaved, but I disagree. I believe that this is an excellent picture of someone who has come out of where Simon had been: he was a sorcerer, he used sorceries, and anyone familiar with such things will tell you that to gain more power, money is usually involed-higher spells cost m,oney-talismen of power cost money. Money=Advancement in one's arts. Now, Simon is a new believer, and how many of us have ever known of a new believer, still immature in the things of God, fall back into old habits of sin, because they just don't yet know any better? I can think of, well, just about ALL of them that I have known. This was his thing, so he just apparently thought it was the way it was done. no one would argue that what he wanted, the power of the Spirit of God, was a BAD thing-we SHOULD desire the gifts to do the work of God-his problem is trying to get it using his old ways.
Now, why was Peter's rebuke so severe? I believe it is because it NEEDED to be severe, because Simon needed to realize the dangerous ground he was walking, even by accident. Any immature Christian can be easilt led into great error simply by not rebuking sin and error when it comes about. So Simon was rebuked soundly for his sin, for it WAS sin, and dangerous sin, at that, sin which could cause others to fall as well,seeing as they were used to following him. Simon needed to see what a weak, powerless man he was, to keep him so. So he was rebuked.
I also see his salvation in his humble acceptance of the harsh rebuke, " And Simon answered and said, Pray ye for me to the Lord, that none of the things which ye have spoken come upon me." Some have said that the fact that Simon didn't pray himself for repentance, proves he didn't really repent, but again, knowing new believers and immature Christians as I do, they often tend to be quite afraid to pray, not quite sure how to, and having to face God for their error can be hard, so that he asked Peter to pray for him, both shows he recognized Peter's aughority as an Apostle, and that it was a good thing to have a godly man pray for him. Do not all of us seek to have godly prayer warriors pray for us, along with our own prayers?
So I see in Simon a weak, immature Christian falling back to his old ways to try to obtain something good, though not his, and unintentionally falling into wickedness that could be very bad if not immediately checked. And especially I see a humbled and repentant man after rebuke.
The other view is that he wasn't saved, and fell back to sorcery, mingled with false Christianity, and continued in his ways, because apparently there are some books that say such.
So what are your views on this?   

I admit, at times, to seriously considering dropping the IFB title, due to the poor name it has been given by some, preachers that are legalists, abusive and rule with an iron fist-I suspect most of us could name a few in that camp. However, I also realize that if that were the case, I'd have to drop the title of Christian, as well, because it has been so greatly perverted for the last...oh, 2000 years. So as I choose to continue to call myself a Christian, because TRUE biblical Christianity is right, so I have chosen to continue to call myself Independent Fundamental Baptist, because I believe in the meaning of the term(s), and hold to the heart of it. So instead of dropping the label, instead I choose to teach people what it means. I have a brief statement on our church website explaining what it is and did a tract that I pass out with gospel tracts, so people know WHO we are and WHY we are who we are.

Well, there is Rom 8, which deals with carnal mindedness and spirit mindedness-clearly there are many churches that are very carnally-minded and should be avoided.
2Cor 6:11-18, which is a clear warning against ecumenism.   Amos 3:3, "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?"
Of course, the difficult thing will be to convince them that the churches that teach wrong are, well, teaching wrong, and as such, need to be avioded.

I dunno, God ordained a lot of ungodly men as king in Israel and Judah, and even the best ones, like David (murderer and adulterer) had problems.
Voting for an unsaved man is not yoking with anyone-it is considering the best of the two, the one who will more likely uphold the laws of the land, (their job), and leave the final results to the Lord. Then, once someone is chosen, we are to follow them insofar as we are not told to walk outside the Bible's boundaries. The Lord ordains the powers that be.

And this is the only post he has made thus far, so he may be a drive-by. 
However, that being said, I know even here in the states, there is a tendency to think among some IFB's that a pastor deserves some special things. Just as a 'F'rinstance' in my experience, some time back, a friend gave my wife and I some money to purchase her a vehicle-he was making very good money and wanted to be a blessing to us. So, we went and bought a second-hand, 10-year old Land Rover. When we drove it to a friend's church, the pstor quipped, "Well, brother, it's about time you got a vehicle you deserve!" Like, there was something wrong with my pick-up, which got me from here to there reliably, but now, a "luxury status-symbol" car, (which we didn't even realize, we just wanted a nice 4x4), was what we 'deserved'. This pastor himself was never driving anything but cadillacs, even if they were older and second hand.  Personally I am happier with my Suburban and hope to get my 85 Bronco up and running soon, and then, maybe work on my 69 VW camper van
 

And in America we have knuckleheads wearing Guy Fawkes masks as though he represents the little guy standing against big corruption, not knowing that he was working for the biggest corrupt organization on the planet at the time. Today I copied and pasted the first two posts here onto the 'Anonymous' Facebook page, since they use the Fawkes mask as their symbol, to try and educate them.

And in America we have knuckleheads wearing Guy Fawkes masks as though he represents the little guy standing against big corruption, not knowing that he was working for the biggest corrupt organization on the planet at the time. Today I copied and pasted the first two posts here onto the 'Anonymous' Facebook page, since they use the Fawkes mask as their symbol, to try and educate them.

Thank you, that was pretty much my point. Though I guess it isn't that the recognize that women must ONLY wear dresses, but rather, they see and understand dresses to be particularly more feminine or female than pants. Even the lost can recognize that dresses are more feminine and female than pants. IS that a basis upon which we should base our truths? Maybe not, but it interests me that the lost often see things more biblically that Christians. An unsaved person might chide a believer for smoking or drinking as indulging in non-Christian behavior, which some Christians will fight for their absolute right to do so.Most unbelievers also clearly see the ridiculousness of CCM, and see it for what it is? Christians wanting to keep up in clearly un-Christian music, while pretending it is okay because they sometimes mention Jesus. I think Southpark, CLEARLY not a Christian program, did an entire episode about that.  Why do the lost see things that are actually correct, that we as Believers often don't, or won't?
 

The first one was done with my friend Harmen, who was the hymn director when I was first pastor there, and was my first friend there. He stuck with me over some difficult times, particularly when my wife (though not at the time) and I were accused of some ugly things by some folks there, including the old pastor and his wife, from listening to a person there that THEY had warned me against ever listening to (so I don't even know how that happened!). He is now living in Nevada near their kids as he and his wife are getting pretty old.
Harmen recently got a call from the pastor of the church he attended while he and his wife were in Guam a couple years back, who told him that they had come across this video and played it for their church, which apparently they enjoyed immensely, so he had to let me know that we are now an international sensation, lol. 
 

Thank you, that was pretty much my point. Though I guess it isn't that the recognize that women must ONLY wear dresses, but rather, they see and understand dresses to be particularly more feminine or female than pants. Even the lost can recognize that dresses are more feminine and female than pants. IS that a basis upon which we should base our truths? Maybe not, but it interests me that the lost often see things more biblically that Christians. An unsaved person might chide a believer for smoking or drinking as indulging in non-Christian behavior, which some Christians will fight for their absolute right to do so.Most unbelievers also clearly see the ridiculousness of CCM, and see it for what it is? Christians wanting to keep up in clearly un-Christian music, while pretending it is okay because they sometimes mention Jesus. I think Southpark, CLEARLY not a Christian program, did an entire episode about that.  Why do the lost see things that are actually correct, that we as Believers often don't, or won't?
 

Thank you, that was pretty much my point. Though I guess it isn't that the recognize that women must ONLY wear dresses, but rather, they see and understand dresses to be particularly more feminine or female than pants. Even the lost can recognize that dresses are more feminine and female than pants. IS that a basis upon which we should base our truths? Maybe not, but it interests me that the lost often see things more biblically that Christians. An unsaved person might chide a believer for smoking or drinking as indulging in non-Christian behavior, which some Christians will fight for their absolute right to do so.Most unbelievers also clearly see the ridiculousness of CCM, and see it for what it is? Christians wanting to keep up in clearly un-Christian music, while pretending it is okay because they sometimes mention Jesus. I think Southpark, CLEARLY not a Christian program, did an entire episode about that.  Why do the lost see things that are actually correct, that we as Believers often don't, or won't?
 

I'm not Uke, so I can't claim to speak for him, but the point I got from what he said was that even perverted "men" seem to know what is women's wear. Which is why they choose it for themselves when they, erm, "come out."
 

Just a reminder, the church directory is for listing KJV, Independent Fundamental Baptist churches only. I have removed a recent listing for "Redemption Church", because it is clearly a contemporary, non-IFB church. If the lister is present, please don't be offended, it is not personal against you-but the rules are clear.   Thanks. If you wish to post something there, and are not sure you meet the criteria, please ask the moderators or refer to the rules.   Thanks all.

Ever notice the weird phenomenon, that when a 'transgender' woman (male to female) is 'transitioning', they wil go to wearing dresses almost exclusively? Like, they somehow naturally associate being a woman with wearing dresses? What's with that? 

I was asked for some more uke videos, so I thought I'd see about putting one or two up, maybe more later. Also, if anyonea music video to share, for those who hve some talent, feel free to share, as well.
Not sure if I have put this one up or not, just one of my men and I singing together.
 
 
An early one, the rythym is a bit odd, as I was still working out bugs in proper playing of Christian music on the uke. This was written by Dr. Herbert Tovey, who taught my parents in classical music, and also has written some hymns.
 

I was asked for some more uke videos, so I thought I'd see about putting one or two up, maybe more later. Also, if anyonea music video to share, for those who hve some talent, feel free to share, as well.
Not sure if I have put this one up or not, just one of my men and I singing together.
 
 
An early one, the rythym is a bit odd, as I was still working out bugs in proper playing of Christian music on the uke. This was written by Dr. Herbert Tovey, who taught my parents in classical music, and also has written some hymns.
 

Tonight, fried pork chops with fried taters from our own garden, and probably carrots, not from our own garden. Next year.

Just a reminder, the church directory is for listing KJV, Independent Fundamental Baptist churches only. I have removed a recent listing for "Redemption Church", because it is clearly a contemporary, non-IFB church. If the lister is present, please don't be offended, it is not personal against you-but the rules are clear.   Thanks. If you wish to post something there, and are not sure you meet the criteria, please ask the moderators or refer to the rules.   Thanks all.

It's not that I don't understand most of them, I just see many as being terms created to maintain an air of superiority above the 'layman'.
 

"Supralapsarianism" What does that even mean?  Yes, many, be they cultists or actual Christians, seem to like their terminiology they invent to describe a biblical concept, (true or not). Oddly, the terms are supposed to reflect the concept for better understanding, but often, they need a serious explanation to understand the term. Exegesis vs Eisegesis, (?), I was a pastor for years before I was even aware of these terms, Soteriology, Angelology, all the other ologies, we sure think we're smart. Just study your Bible, study it in context, and you'll usually do pretty well.

Yes I teach that "Lifestyle Evangelism" is simply making evangelism your lifestyle-showing Christ in all things. That includes active evangelism, but also showing the light of Jesus in your life-otherwise, if you try to actively evangelize, but don't make Christ your life, the active rarely succeeds because people see you for the hypocrite you are, or that you appear to be.