Jump to content

Ukulelemike

Member Since 17 Oct 2012
Offline Last Active Today, 07:07 PM
-----

#397278 Questioning One's Belief Or View Of Scriptural Meanings

Posted by Ukulelemike on Today, 10:41 AM

True John. And really, rarely do we see eschotological ro theological view changed in debates. The only time I was ever willing to change was after getting alone with scripture, in prayer, and spending serious time and effort in studying it out, with the goal only of being to please God.

 

I think we should all be willing to hear things that challenge us, even in deeply held things, even in fundamentals, if for no other reason that to take again the time to investigate all the claims given from a biblical perspective, even if just to refresh it into our minds and hearts.

 

I have listened to people claims of losing salvation, of Jesus not being God, many things that I know scripturally are incorrect, and I will often go over the points they seek to make, scripturally. I always come out where I was, because those things are clear, but it also gives me a way to clearly dispute it to them-after all, if I'm not willing to go over their points, why would I expect them to go over mine?

 

Mind you, it isn't being carried about by winds of doctrine-rather, it is faith that the challenge will be met well, because I know the truth. And if I conclude I am wrong, then I can more clearly see to obey properly. And I HAVE been wrong before, and I suspect I might be again.




#397272 Questioning One's Belief Or View Of Scriptural Meanings

Posted by Ukulelemike on Today, 09:21 AM

I think one issue in this, is that when we deal with spiritual things, they tend to be extremely close to our hearts, and thus, to stand opposed to one's strongly-held convictions, unless the person has a remarkable amount of grace, will often result in anger, offense and backlash. I think anger can certainly be appropriate, because, well, Jesus was angry at times with those who thought they understood but didn't, as was Paul, Peter and others. Jesus called Peter "Satan"; Peter, I recall, gave Simon the former sorcercer a resounding chewing out for trying to buy a power he had no authority to have.  Sometimes we CAN be angry, yet we must always endeavor to "sin not." And its a great sin, I think, to declare someone not saved because they disagree on how one understands something, saving for having yto do specifically with salvation. We need to remember that not everyone is where we are, and when someone gets saved, the devil is there to seek to pervert their knowledge if he can, get us following the wrong people.

 

I followed, for a while, Jack Hyles' ways of thinking, was even convicted to go into service for Christ under his preaching, yet today, I distance myself from him, because of things I have since learned. I used to be a quick-prayerist, used to be a pre-trib rapturist, (not the place for that discussion). And once I would fight for these things which I have now, after more study and prayer, repudiated in my life.  Yet I was saved before and I am saved now, because Jesus Christ died for my sin and paid the price I owed, and by faith, through His grace, I received eternal life through Him.




#397139 New Name for IFBs

Posted by Ukulelemike on 16 December 2014 - 01:14 PM

Does Westboro describe themselves as "IFB"? if so, why do they think its their place to go to other churches and demand they do things their way? I guess they've missed the fact that it isn't any of their business, that if they want to deal with them as brethren, they should do it biblically, privately initially, then, if necessary, to do it publicly, but respectfully. And if they don't consider them brethren, they should just be seeking to give them the gospel, because trying to get the lost to live according to the word of God is like trying to get a fish to live in a tree-they are not the right kind of creature yet.  




#397128 New Name for IFBs

Posted by Ukulelemike on 16 December 2014 - 09:28 AM

Christian is also my problem. I don't want to be called a christian because I know many who call themselves christian and i would never listen to, watch, wear, or go whre they do and i do not want others to lump me with them. I am a Biblisist.

Well, and herein is the issue. Christian is a proper biblical term, why would you cease from using that? Just because someone else who doesn't act like a Christian uses the term? Saint is a proper term, but the Catholics have soiled it; Fundamentalist is a good term, but now everything evil under the sun is called fundamentalist. Time and again, we run from proper terminology to describe ourselve, because someone says "Boo".

 

So the big question is, When will we cease letting the world and the wicked define us? When will we stop running and stand our ground and take back what is ours? The wicked took the rainbow, first by the new agers, then the gays; the satanists took the goat, which is described as one of the holy animals of God; They misuse proper words and terms and twist them, and we run to something else. When will we stop running? Yes, our faith is a race, but it doesn't mean to run from the battles. I say, its time we took back what is ours by the hand of God, and stop letting the world tell us what we can and can't be.

 

That'll preach, brethren!




#397092 Sheep, Shepherd, Or Wolf?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 15 December 2014 - 09:48 AM

BAck to the topic at hand, its interesting to see that Mr. Ruckman doesn't consider abortion murder, using the creation of Adam as his proof text. The creation of Adam was significantly different from the birth of a child. First, Adam was build up from nothing, from dust, formed to a fully aduly man, the dust made flesh, but without ANY life, then, his nostrils were breathed into, and he received the spirit of life from God, a different spirit from the animals.

 

A baby conceived in the womb has life well before there is specifically breath. As well, it takes in oxygen from the mother, just not through its lungs.

A website on this issue puts it like this:

 

The unborn baby exchanges oxygen and carbon dioxide with the mother through the placenta and umbilical cord. The mother’s blood circulates through the placenta and also carries nutrients to the baby. The placenta is attached to the uterine wall and to the umbilical cord, which is attached to the baby. The mother, in effect, breathes for the baby. The mother inhales and breathes in oxygenated air, which passes through her circulatory system to the baby through the placenta and umbilical cord. Carbon dioxide returns from the baby through the umbilical cord and placenta to the mother, who exhales and removes the waste from her body.

So, while the lungs do not yet operate, it still receives oxygen, and clearly, has a living soul. It has a heartbeat very early on, as well as brain functions. Ruckman's argument that until it breathes for itself, means it isn't alive, is a fallacy, primarily of ignorance of how babies develop in the womb. And according to David, speaking apparently at the behest of the holy Ghost, the Lord knew him, even before he was knit together in his mother's womb. Jeremiah was called to preach before he was born. Sounds like God considered them people before they breathed on their own.

 

I wouldn't want to be him when he has to answer for who-knows-how many abortions are performed due to his assurance that its alright.




#396634 Hello I'm Jordan

Posted by Ukulelemike on 10 December 2014 - 10:33 AM

Welcome aboard, Jordan.

 

Careful as you navigate the waters here abouts-we sometimes have some, shall we say, spirited debate.  Don't take things too personal, and remember, we're all just servants seeking to do our utmost for our Lord. Enjoy, listen, contribute, and study. May God bless your work as you move for Him.




#396585 ...honour The King,

Posted by Ukulelemike on 09 December 2014 - 06:26 PM

I cannot honor Obama in any way at present.  Perhaps if he trusted Christ the answer would be different.

My Bible says that those that God puts over us are terrors to the evil, and not the good.

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Romans 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Romans 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Romans 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Romans 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Obama is against all that is God.  He has clearly demonstrated it.  His office is not ordained of God.  Rather, it is allowed by God.  God wants a people who will have Him as their authority.  Instead, they, like ancient Israel, wanted a king to rule them.  God gave them what they wanted.  He has allowed America to have what they wanted. 

Sadly, that which they wanted has proven to not be that which they needed. 

No, based on the fact that God's appointed rulers are terrors to the evil and not the good, I can emphatically say that God did not give us Obama so that we could honor Obama. 

And yet, he said it at a time that true tyrants of Rome, like Caesar Agustus, was ruler over Israel, as well as the rest of the known world, the same guy who would go on to take Paul's head. Hardly a God-fearing leader.




#396583 Really?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 09 December 2014 - 06:09 PM

When I was in the Navy, stationed aboard a ship in San Diego, it was well-known among the sailors about the Soviet Balzam class intelligence-collecting ship that sat just at the edge of international waters.  Once, when our ship went to sea, working as I did on the highest deck of the ship, equipped with 'big-eyes', which were like binoculars on steroids, (you could about read hull numbers on a ship on the horizon), I saw the Soviet ship there, but something was od about it-I was familiar with what it looked like, as it was a very unique-looking vessel, but now it seemed to have extra masts and such. As we got closer I realized it was doing a replenishment, (getting gas, for those non-military-types), with a Soviet replenishment ship-very rare opportunity to see them work, particularly since, American ships do replenishments side-by-side, while the Soviets did it front to back, with one ship behind the other. Made it very slow for them, while we could zip along at full-speed.

balzam_class_l1.jpg

Balzam Class Soviet Intel Collector ship.  That's some maintenance they did on those ships, eh?




#396562 ...honour The King,

Posted by Ukulelemike on 09 December 2014 - 02:11 PM

That's better than many Christians who still call Elvis "The King". :icon_rolleyes:

He DID make a great peanut butter and banana sandwich!  Don't know that it would qualify him as king, but it does say something for him.

 

Just a short diversion, I remember David Cloud, I believe, talking about Elvis. I think either he met him, or he spoke of another preacher who did, who said that Elvis gave an excellent testimony of salvation, but at some point veered off into all kinds of weird things with fame. He said it was very sad, because he really believes Elvis was born again, but he had gone kind of nuts. Apparently he was very generous, giving expensive gifts to his assistants-maybe one remaining aspect of his faith. It may also explain his relatively young death, that the Lord let him run as for a while, then brought him home.  Speculation, but something to think on.

 

Back to the post!




#396539 Way Of Life - Hating The Rapture

Posted by Ukulelemike on 09 December 2014 - 09:21 AM

Do you have any 'material' that you could email me or snail mail me? I would be interested in reading your info.

Well, you know, as I studied it out, and looked at the similarities between what occured in the unsealing of the seals, and over the rest of the tribulation/wrath period, it seemed like either there was a lot of repeats, and I hypothsize, because I'm not perfect nor do I suppose to understand it perfectly, that the seals are kind of a Previews of Coming Attractions: ie, the rise of the Antichrist as peacemaker, subsequent war and famine and death, eventually ending up with the falling of God's wrath. So I really don't have any material to speak of. If I can find some I will let you know.




#395939 God's Will Was Done.

Posted by Ukulelemike on 04 December 2014 - 03:04 PM

Pharaoh hardened his own heart first, just FYI...he chose the way he was going to go before God ever hardened his heart (I would call that kind of equivalent to how Christians are today...when a Christian repeatedly turns away from obeying God, He quits dealing with them - and I would most certainly say that when God quits working with someone their hearts are hardened, and consciences seared).

 

I didn't say anything about position.  I said government.  God ordained government because man needs it. He did not state that there was a certain style of government or even certain people who should or should not govern.  

 

God has used evil to bring about things, but that does not mean it is His will.  He allows it.   God allows the government a people seeks - we see that clearly with Israel choosing an earthly king.  Sadly, here in America, too many people have been convinced that a socialistic government is great and good, and too many people who know better are too lazy to do anything about it.  That's God's allowance, but not His will. His will would be that nations seek Him and serve Him. 

No, God ordained government because man chose it over Him.

 

as for Pharaoh, Romans 9:17 states "For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth."  Pharaoh fulfilled the will of God-his hardening was never fully of himself-that was why God raised him up. Now, does God just USE that evil, foreknown, or did God, in what He says here, actually WILL it to be so?  And I'm not getting Calvinistic here, just it seems that those in power don't seem to have the same free will everyone else does, Since the Lord DOES say that the Lord turns his heart withersoever He will. Sounds like control, not just working His will through ours.  




#395919 God's Will Was Done.

Posted by Ukulelemike on 04 December 2014 - 10:58 AM

The 'powers that be" includes the person. Not just the position. Also remember:

 

The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.  (Prov 21:1). Not the heart of the office.

 

See, the way I understand it, is that the Lord, from the beginning, had a plan, and He has arranged everything to go as it should. The powers that be, whether king, prince, emperor or president, all of them, in their good and evil, are used of God to bring about His will. It was God who sent the lying spirit to the prophets, and the Lord that sent wicked nebuchadnezzar as His sword to punish Israel, and the Lord that sent an evil spirit to trouble Saul. The Lord is not the author of evil, but He can control it and cause it to do His will.

 

I don't try to understand it all, because it doesn't make sense to me, but the Bible seems clear. For Pharoahto harden his heart against God was sin, yet it was God who hardened it. I don't get it, but there it is. Not mine to understand, just to accept. I also believe that God used hitler and his wickedness to bring such tragedy upon the Jews, that the world could no longer stand idly by, and thus, brought them back to their land after 1900 years. 




#395902 God's Will Was Done.

Posted by Ukulelemike on 04 December 2014 - 09:30 AM

1Samuel 8:

10And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.

11And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

12And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

13And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

14And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

15And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

16And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

17He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

18And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

 

The Lord made it clear how the people would be who rule over us, when we don't have God as a ruler. They will take, take take, and that hasn't changed.

 

As well, consider the first man God chose, Saul. Chosen by the hand of God personally, and yet, it only took a couple years before he fell into sin and disobedience. Was God shocked? No, He knew this was how it would go. He also looked ahead and saw all the wicked kings and princes that would come from the lines He appointed, through Davi's line and Jereboam's line, in Judah and Israel.

 

We also know the cruelty and wickedness of the Roman leaders, and yet., it was while Israel and most of the known world was under that very rule that, under the direction of the holy Ghost, Paul said, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." (Rom 13:1,2)

 

So, it is the Lord that promotes, be they wicked men or good men. They are ordained of God-all of them, and, save for when they direct us to act against God's word, or the laws of the land, we are to be subject to them. Whether a king, an emperor or a president. Yes, we should stand against, and speak against when they are wicked and lawless, but otherwise, we are to be subject, not for their sakes, but out of obedience to God. He is placein whom He will, to bring about the expected end as he has ordained.




#395649 Pope Says It Is Wrong To Equate Islam With Violence

Posted by Ukulelemike on 02 December 2014 - 07:31 PM

Walk into a gathering of IFBs and announce you are a "proud, gay, Baptist" and you will quickly discover whether the true meaning of words can be held to or if corrupted use taints them to the point of being unusable in a right way. :icon_smile:

If you notice, we still us the Bible version that speaks of the man wearing the gay clothing.  Yes, we titter a bit when its said, (like speaking of Balaam's talking ass), but its still valid English with proper definition.

 

Besides, I suspect I wouldn't walk into ANY IFB church and announce that I am anything but born again. but I get your point.




#395633 Pope Says It Is Wrong To Equate Islam With Violence

Posted by Ukulelemike on 02 December 2014 - 06:14 PM

Words have meanings, definitions, and when those definitions are valid, there is no reason to abandon them, just because they are tainted by the world.

 

The term Fundamentalist refers to someone who holds to the fundamentals, or the basics, the foundations, of their beliefs, (in a religious sense). Thus, a fundamentalist Muslim would, indeed, be someone who believes in killing those who won't convert, because that is an Islamic fundamental. Their 'prophet,' so-called, practiced it.

 

An Fundamentalist Mormon is someone who would hold to the polygamy of their founder, Joseph Smith, who declared it to be an everlasting covenant between themselves and their god. It would be proper.

 

Westboro is NOT a fundamentalist group, and their preaching and activities declare such. Timothy McVeigh wasn't a fundamentalist, nor was David Koresh, or Jim Jones, despite what the media says.

 

Neither I, nor my faith, will be decided by what the media says. Seriously, the term 'Christian" has a negative connotation to it for many-shall we cease using that term? Being a 'separatist' is negatively viewed by many, but I will still stand and declare myself such. 

 

I am an Independent Fundamental Baptist Christian, because I believe those terms describe my faith and my stand. And I must admit, it makes me wonder why some say they're IFB, if they have repudiated the "F".

 

As far as the Pope's climate, its no different than the 'climate' they have been seeking to make since the Vatican II in the 1960's, and became ecumenical. The problem is, they aren't giving the gospel to anyone, and they still clearly maintain that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic church. So, it hasn't changed at all-they will make small concessions to get others to step under their umbrella, as they have done for 2,000 years, but ultimately, those will have to join the RCC, not the other way around. It is a false peace, a false reaching out, being performed by a Jesuit, THE Jesuit. And a Jesuit always has the mother church as their sole thought behind everything they do. DON'T doubt me on this.






The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500