• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Ukulelemike

  • Rank
    Just a Servant
  • Birthday November 11

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location: NE California
  • Interests Preaching, drawing, singing, ukulele, goats, herpetoculturism.
  • Are you IFB? Yes

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo


  • Bio Pastor of a small IFBaptist church in NE California, raise goats, sheep, chickens, rabbits. Play ukulele and sing. Sometimes TO my goats.

Recent Profile Visitors

7,944 profile views
  1. Errors of Calvanism

    of course God has the 'right to choose". On occasion God even took all choice away from people: "And when it was told Saul, he sent other messengers, and they prophesied likewise. And Saul sent messengers again the third time, and they prophesied also. Then went he also to Ramah, and came to a great well that is in Sechu: and he asked and said, Where are Samuel and David? And one said, Behold, they be at Naioth in Ramah. And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets? " (1Sam 19:21-24) In this case we see that God took all Saul's wil away for a short time and humbled him, making him strip naked and lay down and prophesy before His prophet, Samuel. But, that God gave us the right to choose, as well, would make sense, as He created us in His image.  And of course, God not only chose the Hebrews as His people, (there would be no Israel, no Hebrews, except that He called them out of Ur of the Chaldees, in Abram), but apparently they had the right, at least as individuals, as well as a people, to reject Him.  Jesus reveals that in His own words: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" If God is sovereign, why can he not allow us the right to choose, be it well or poorly?
  2. The Tithe, for the Church or not?

    I believe we're making way too much of this than we need to. Simply, the 'tithe' was an aspect of the OT law. Abraham gave to Melchizedek 10% of his war spoils and gave the rest back to the kings from the nations he helped. he kept nothing for himself, save that which the men ate of. And it was giving to God, through Melchizedek, recognizing him as the priest of the most High God. It was everything-money, jewelry, clothes, food, whatever they gained through the spoil. The Bible says nothing more about it, specifically, so to go any further is pure speculation. Jacob promised to give 'the tenth part' of all he had, but it was actually conditional-it wasn't the first ten percent, but the tenth part, really, the last ten percent, by his words, and it was conditioned upon the Lord first being faithful to him and bringing him safely back home. We see nothing about that ever being followed through with, though we can safely assume it was. Was it a regular giving? To someone? Or was it, perhaps, 10% of his flock and herd given as a sacrifice? The Bible doesn't tell. So can we consider it a tithe? I don't think so, in the strictest sense. I think the modern giving to the churches is comparable to Ex 36:3, "And they received of Moses all the offering, which the children of Israel had brought for the work of the service of the sanctuary, to make it withal. And they brought yet unto him free offerings every morning." When the tabernacle had to be built, and all the furnishings for it, the people gave a freewill offering, so much so that there was more than needed, and Moses had to command the giving be ceased. It was freewill, made up of money, jewelry, garments, whatever was needed for the tabernacle.   This seems more like what the churches do today. Like not long back when we had our own building, we had a need for new double-pane windows-so some gave money to buy them, while others just went and bought some windows. I think the big problem comes when pastors refer to the giving AS 'tithing', specifically, because that brings the implication that it is an absolute requirement. And to say few pastors teach it is mandatory, well, my experience has been pastors who do, indeed, teach that. One pastor told a member of the church that was having financial troubles, that he HAD to give his tithe, but that, if he gave it, the pastor would give it back to him-he just HAD to show his faithfulness in his tithes. Then there ore the pastors who teach that God will take the tithe one way or another, be it in giving, or through car repairs, because we know that God is honored when our cars break down. Even the OT priests didn't teach that. "Verily thou must giveth the tithe of thy field and thy flocks, else the wheels of thy chariots shall fall off, or thy mule shall break his leg and God shalt collect His tithe in thy repair bill."
  3. Errors of Calvanism

    To solidify this thought, bear in mind the Bible says that we are ALREADY seated in heavenly places in Jesus Christ: But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." (Eph 2:4-7). These verses show things from God's perspective, that we who have been saved have already been seated in heavenly places-to God it is already a done deal, though we may be here on earth still in the flesh. God's perspective on things is always from the eternal, from the beginning to the end, there is not difference to God.  
  4. Helping Kids Adjust

    Well, three year olds don't generally know what is best for them, so, outside of maybe knowing when they need to go potty, I don't let them make their own choices yet. That being said, if he can behave himself in big church, then bring him there. Personally, I think we short-shrift kids when they are banished from the family into a class where they learn how to color and make popsicle stick crosses, rather than being immersed in the word of God; they are capable of understanding much more than we give them credit for. I will tell you how I came to that conclusion. Some years back I was asked to preach at, of all places, a motocross event, in the pit area. One of the things I saw there, and was amazed at, was the little kids, 5, 6 years old, riding fully-motorized, miniature motorcycles, at high speeds, on the exact same track as the adult riders, same track and course, same jumps same obstacles, and doing exceptionally.  I realized then and there, if a 5-year-old can learn to operate a motorcycle on a motocross track responsibly, why can't they learn more about the Lord than singing Jesus Loves Me and watching a puppet show and covering their hands in glue? So, if he is happy in church with you, and he behaves himself, he is far more likely to learn more there, than in a class where he is unhappy and distracted by that unhappiness.
  5. Errors of Calvanism

    Good verses, however you are making a philosophical leap here. It is true that only those the Father has given to Jesus will come to Him. However, that doesn't discount that ALL are drawn and ALL are lightened by Christ, thus ALL have an opportunity to come. But, the Lord knows from the beginning who WILL, and as such, they are them which the Father giveth to the Son.  We are ALL given of the Father, but some choose not to answer.  Jesus died for the sin of the WORLD-that's the same world that the Father so loved that He gave His only begotten Son for. The world is the lost system-that incorporates everyone. That they are dead in sin does not take away the ability to choose to follow or not, nor does the Bible say as much-it is an assumption, a leap that is not in scripture; dead just means without Christ. Every single person on earth who is not born again is dead, and they make choices every day, some even to follow Christ unto eternal life. "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." By the way, they didn't leave Christ because He said the Father would draw them, they left because of misunderstanding His doctrine on the His being the Bread of life, and their need to eat His flesh and drink His blood. That's why they left.
  6. Errors of Calvanism

    We also remember that, if we are to be comformed to the image of His Son, well, the Son is the express image of the Father, sooooo... As for the mystery of how God can be sovereign, and man responsible, this has never been a stretch for me: If God is sovereign, which He surely is, then is does not that sovereignty expand to ALLOWING man, IN His  sovereignty, the ability and responsibility to make a choice to follow or reject? Apparently, even the angels have some amount of free will is a third of them followed Lucifer in his rebellion, surely an act of free will-else God willed evil, willed rebellion against Himself, willed that man would fall to sin, etc...See the mess we get without free will? Of course, there are those instances where clearly the Lord has prepared someone to do something to show forth His glory. For instance: "And the LORD said unto Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me. For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth. For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth. And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth." (Ex 9:13-16)   In this instance, it seems the Lord specifically set Pharaoh to reject His commands to let them go, for the purpose of showing His power, not just to Egypt, but to all the nations that would later hear of it. We see that 40 years later those of Jericho knew of it, and feared them because of it. So it had a more lasting effect than just then and there. We also have the example of Cyrus being called by name as the king who would release the Jews from captivity and make possible the rebuilding of the temple in the book of Isaiah, long before it happened. So it makes me wonder, perhaps those who would be in power don't have the same amount of free will that others do-those who wield power and earthly authority seem to be more directed by God in various ways, or God just gives us the rulers we deserve, who will bring about the expected end. After all the Proverbs 21:1 tells us "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." Would this not extend to ALL earthly rulers, be they kings, emperors, pharaohs and presidents?
  7. "Come back sheep..........

    We had some young girls come to see our goats, but instead of petting the friendly goats who were right there, they insisted on chasing the offish ones. We made short work of that.
  8. Errors of Calvanism

    Now, gents, don't make me turn this car around! We will go RIGHT home, so help me!
  9. "Come back sheep..........

    Boy, do it while you're young! get some age under your belt and all that fun is hefty labor! My wife and I in our fifties are beginning to wonder if we have made the right decision, and we generally just have goats. Just had baby season, I believe about 30 kids on the ground. The last of the slow learners have finally begun eating on their own, so we are relieved of the twice-daily routine of holding udders for slow kids.
  10. Errors of Calvanism

    I agree on the definition. I guess my point being, in matters of biblical doctrine, we must, as well, consider the character of the person who is putting forth such doctrines, to aid us. Its true that we can know doctrine is false regardless of whether we know who the author is, And really, its best that way, so we can be careful not to be lulled into careless appraisal of doctrine because we know the person and trust them. Case in point, someone showed me a sermon done by Spurgeon, (not on Calvinism), where he called Michael the Archangel, Jesus Christ. Now, while I disagree with Spurgeon on his Calvinist views, (though at least he believed strongly in witnessing), I generally agree in other areas. So that he would make such a statement was jarring, and his stamp of approval, as it were, on a false doctrine, could lure others into such falsehoods.  In Calvin's case, we know from history that he was a wicked man with no grace, no compassion, no tolerance for anyone who held a belief different from his own-this is not to say that we ignore other doctrines and just get along, but he wasn't willing to really search the scriptures-he had his doctrine, his box for God, and rather than repudiate what he disagreed with, he would use force and torture to make others follow. Not godly. So, his life and character help, because can a man who shows no sign of regeneration, be trusted in ANY of his doctrines? If he has no leading of the Spirit in his daily walk, can we trust him to have it in his understanding of scripture? That's all I'm saying. 
  11. Errors of Calvanism

    Actually, I think an ad hominem attack would be like "Calvinism is wrong because Calvin is a jerk who eats worms." In other words, a personal attack that has nothing to do with the issues at hand. However, when dealing with Calvin's theological leanings and manner toward those who disagreed with him, I would say they are quite relevant. Calvin may have left the RCC, but he acted like a pope, himself-he allowed no disagreement with him, and would imprison, torture, banish and kill those who disagreed with him, or even for lesser things, like being silly. Some kid stuck a bean in some Easter cake, (I don't remember the entire story off the top of my head), and Calvin had him put in prison for a few days. Calvin showed no sign of a Christian spirit of kindness and love-he ruled with an iron fist. So really, when dealing with associations and character, you CAN make some proper associations, and it should not be considered an ad hominem attack.
  12. All Preachers Should Have A Conceal Weapon Permit

    This is way long since you made this comment, as I haven't looked at the thread in a long time, but I will say we should remember that while David was a man of war, and it was good in that he protected the nation of Israel, BUT he was also disallowed from building God's temple because specifically, he was a man of war that shed much blood. he lost some real spiritual blessings there.
  13. Evolution Evangelism

    There will be no repercussions-if anything they will receive the Dawkins-Nye Award for Excellence in Brainwashing.  It's no big surprise-all their books on such things as dinosaurs start out with 'millions of years ago...' of course the public school system likes and encourages evolution. And of course the kids like it, because they have a reason to act like a bunch of monkeys. Personally, I have only had one ancestor that swung from a tree branch, but that wasn't by a tail.
  14. Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans

    I wonder if this author realizes that it could easily be applied in the reverse. Its a terrible thing when one believes they know it all. Even as believers, we can't hope to know it ALL, but there are some things we CAN know clearly. In the area of evolution vs Creation, its funny in the article, if applied to that, (though I suspect it was actually directed toward those against man-made climate change), that they speak of 'verifiable knowledge', when in fact, we ALL have the same evidence: bones and fossils; we just then interpret them differently, according to a pre-conceived bias, neither of which can, in this life, even be proven or verifiable. Once great age was assumed in the equation, all the science has that 'fact' built into the process, and it automatically formulated into the results. Its the same with climate change. HAS there been some climate change? I suspect so, in some sort or another. I know the last two winters where I live have been remarkably drier and warmer than for as long as anyone here can remember. However, I also know this area, all dirt and sagebrush and dryness, was once called 'the Land of the Never Sweats', because it was once so fertile you could grow crops without ever having to break a sweat. And even further back, it was part of a massive inland sea called Lake Lahotan, that stretched hundreds of miles through NE California down through a big piece of Nevada. So it seems to me that there has been significant change for hundreds, even thousands of years. I suspect it has been going on for at least 4400 years, since the flood, which probably cause the ice age, so-called, and the glaciers and has been receeding ever since. But, since scientists think that this change is something new, a change from an assumed 'constant', all of their computer models are biased with that assumption, and thus all their models are continually wrong. Antarctic ice will be gone by 2010...opps, actually, it's increasing. and yet if it DID melt off, well, we have maps of the antarctic without ice, so at one time, it was clear.
  15. The Prodigal Son

    Another issue with physical sin, be it what you refer to here, or perhaps smoking, drinking, drugs, etc, I believe one must deal, not just with the sin itself, but with deeper sin, sin behind it. Things like addiction, masturbation, and the like, I consider symptom sins, symptoms of deeper sin that, unless we deal with THOSE, its like putting a band aid on an open artery-it might hold it back for a minute, but eventually the blood will flow again because the source hasn't been dealt with. All sin, pretty much, can be boiled down to three primary sins: Lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. These three sins are seen easily in what Eve did in committing the first sin among humanity: she SAW the fruit, that it was pleasant to the eyes, (lust of the eyes), good for food, (lust of the flesh) and desired to make one wise, (pride of life).  When one is dealing with such physical sins, you have to consider the foundational sin, as well. If one is dealing with self-gratification, and using porn, then we have lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes. So we need to repent of those, as well as the acting out. If, as you said, it was done out of anger, or in some other way we are justifying it, because we are angry, tired, whatever, then it would also be pride of life, because we are putting our own excuses above God's word, and our pride is working in that. I speak this out of experience-I have dealt with physical sin that I felt trapped in, until I began to deal with the underlying sins, and admitting to myself, as well, my pride and my lust. I am not perfect, (having dealt with these for so many years), but the problems are far less prevalent than they have ever been.  Deal with the underlying sins.