Jump to content

Ukulelemike

Member Since 17 Oct 2012
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 11:30 AM
-----

#380509 Speaking In Tongues

Posted by Ukulelemike on Yesterday, 11:31 AM

I want to repeat this, because no one has really said anything about it:

 

 

Tongues, generally-speaking, were given for one primary purpose: as a sign to unbelieving Jews, as a fulfillment of prophecy. 1Cor 14:21 says "In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord." This prophecy is found in !saiah 28:11 & 12: "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear." Tongues was given for the sake of the Jews, as a sign that their promised rest in the Messiah had come, yet, in Isaiah, they were warned that they wouldn't hear it, and so it came to pass. These are those referred to in 1Cor 14:22, :"Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe."




#380410 John Calvin Had It All Wrong

Posted by Ukulelemike on 29 July 2014 - 06:44 PM

 

 

 

 

 

Like in  

 

Joh 12:19  The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.

To the Pharisees, israel pretty much was the entire world, or all they cared about.

 

or:

 

Lu 2:1  And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
This is quoting Agustus; HE said that all the world was to be taxed. To Agustus, all he controlled was THE world
 
Not to mention  
 
Ac 11:28  And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
 
How do we know there wasn't a dearth in the whole world? Keep in mnd the world is specifically the people, the lost. So where there were people, there was a dearth.

 




#380378 Speaking In Tongues

Posted by Ukulelemike on 29 July 2014 - 04:49 PM

I truly believe they were just acknowledging that they were hearing their language actually being spoken because of three verses...a gift of speaking rather than hearing. Two verses precede the verse you mentioned, and the other follows...

 

Acts 2:4-11
  4   And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
  5   And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
  6   Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
  7   And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
  8   And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
  9   Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
  10    Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
  11   Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

And of course my point isn't really to try and prove that point-but as has been said earlier, and I have heard from other godly folks, the Lord seems to work by causing some to HEAR their language, though it is not what is being spoke, today. I had heard one old pastor fiend of mine relate a story like that, of witnessing to two mexican ladies, one of whom spoke English, and the other didn't, so after he gave the gospel to the one, he hasked her to translate, but the other woman said she had understood it all, and wanted to be saved. until yesterday, reading a similar story here, I had not heard it, save for the one I just related, so perhaps the Lord ODES work in such a way. Is it tongues? Maybe not exactly, but similar. And if the result is true salvation, I would say its from God-its not showy and doesn't glorify the speaker, only the Lord.




#380347 Speaking In Tongues

Posted by Ukulelemike on 29 July 2014 - 12:02 PM

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.  Much of the context of 1Cor, particularly chapters 12 and 14, concern spiritual gifts, among them being miraculous tongues speaking, knowledge and prophecying. So this verse is speaking of the gifts of these things. Thus, knowledge in general still exists, and prophecy does, in that prophecy is the giving of God's revealed will, which every godly preacher does when he preaches a scriptural sermon, and tongues, as far as human languages still exist. And as has been testified of here, and I have heard of the same thing occurring, the Lord still, from time to time, opens the ears of understanding of the lost to hear the gospel, even if spoken in a different language than they understand. But that's different than the gift spoken of in 1Cor 14. So clearly, due to context, we know that this verse is speaking of the miraculous gifts.

 

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

  We know in part and prophecy in part-this means that as the Lord gives the gifts of knowledge and prophecy, it is partial-no one person was given ALL prophecy or ALL knowledge-each prophecy was for a reason, and was a part of the totality of prophecies the Lord would give for His people, be they Israel or the churches.

 

But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

This verse juxtaposes the previous verse, speaking of 'in part', thus, perfect does, indeed, mean 'complete'. In part/perfect...in part/complete. That which is perfect refers to the completion of the word of God, what we call the canon of scripture. Once that was complete, Once the Lord gave the last prophecy, the last revelation of His will and word, that which was perfect came, and thus, that which was in part was done away.

 

Tongues, generally-speaking, were given for one primary purpose: as a sign to unbelieving Jews, as a fulfillment of prophecy. 1Cor 14:21 says "In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord." This prophecy is found in !saiah 28:11 & 12: "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear." Tongues was given for the sake of the Jews, as a sign that their promised rest in the Messiah had come, yet, in Isaiah, they were warned that they wouldn't hear it, and so it came to pass. These are those referred to in 1Cor 14:22, :"Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe."  Once they rejected completely, once the canon of scripture was completed, tongues as a GIFT ceased. It doesn't mean, again, that the Lord can't use it as He did on Pentecost, which is, as I read it, the same way it was testified here, not so much necessarily a miracle of speech, but a miracle of understanding, though that could be argued. But when you hear that someone who understands NO English, yet understands the gospel in English, it seems to make sense.




#380304 John Calvin Had It All Wrong

Posted by Ukulelemike on 28 July 2014 - 10:41 PM

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life"

 

We see two groups here:

 

the world: that means, well, the WORLD-everybody. To try to force an interpretation onto it, to mean PART of the world, or the part of the world that was pre-chosen for salvation, but NOT the part that was pre-chsen for hell. It means the world.

 

Whosoever believeth in Him; that means those OF the world that believe and receive salvation.

 

Jesus died for ALL sinners.

 

acts 17:30- :And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:'  God would be unrighteous to command all men to repent, if He knew full well some could not, and the thers would have no choice bUT to repent.

 

Rom 5:18 "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."  The gift came upon all men-justification was made for all, in nthe death and resurrection of Christ for all men, but not all would accept it, and thus, die in their sins.

 

John 12:32 "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.". Jesus draws all, but some reject that drawing.

 

1tim 3:2,3: "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

 

1Tim 4:10: "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."  I believe this verse is extremely telling, because it says He is the Saviour of ALL MEN, SPECIALLY those that believe. not ONLY those that beleve. Jesus is, potentially, Saviour of ALL men, because He died for all men, for the sin of the world, but because some will reject, salvation is not realized for them. So He is Savour of all, but that salvation will only be realized in those who receive, those that believe.

 

John 1:9 "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." Jesus lights, or enlightens ALL men that come into the world, but some hate the light and refuse it, because they love darkness more.

 

The Bible disagrees time and again with the idea of "world=only some of the world". And really, it would mean only a very tiny portion of the world-that Jesus, out of multiplied billions who would live upon the earth, only a few would be pre-ordined to life by God. God only loves a few, of His choosing, and only sent His Son to die for a few few chosen to life.




#380211 John Calvin Had It All Wrong

Posted by Ukulelemike on 28 July 2014 - 11:19 AM

Did Jesus die for the sins of Hitler?  Well, John the Baptist said, of Jesus, "Behold the Lmab of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

 

The sin of the world seems like a pretty all-encompassing thing.

 

Paul, when speaking of the gospel, said, "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures" If this is the gospel, which is preached to the LOST, then the "OUR sins" would be speaking universally.

 

Jesus Christ died for ALL the sin of ALL the world-He paid for the sin of the entire world, all the lost. Thus, yes, even for Hitler and Jeffery Dahmer and Ted Bundy and Joseph Stalin and Osama Bin Laden, etc, etc.

 

The question is, Is this to be considered "universal redemption"?   No, redemption is to possess something and then, one day, redeem it to yourself, like buying something on layaway-you can pay for it, but leave it until a convenient time to pick up. It is bought and paid for, your property, but to be redeemed at a later time.  So, Christ paid for the sin of ALL, but not all will be redeemed, because unlike layaway, the product paid for has to be in agreement-they have to accept that payment for themselves. So, some reject that Jesus paid for them, some disbelieve it, some still want to try and pay for themselves.

 

Salvation is like having a gift for someone-its bought and paid for, and I am holding it in my hand, offering it to them-but that person must reach out and accept the gift, or it does them no good-it is theirs, it is paid for, but not accepted. We MUST accept salvation for the salvation to apply to us.




#380189 Inconceivable! Famous Lookalikes!

Posted by Ukulelemike on 28 July 2014 - 08:19 AM

I noticed this fact last night at church when we were watching a video on the RCC's aggression against the KJV Bible, and every time they showed a picture of Tischendorf, I turned to my wife and said "Inconceivable!". The really funny part is that she thought it was funny every time I said it.

inconceivable.jpg




#380107 Way Of Life - Friday Church News Notes, Volume 15, Issue 30

Posted by Ukulelemike on 27 July 2014 - 07:52 PM

There are similar things over here. I read of a woman who is some sort of Wiccan priestess (or whatever they called her) and she's also an ordained minister and pastors a Christian (supposedly anyway) church. The picture which accompanied the article I read showed her covered in tattoos.

Well, golly-gee, lets get our togas and Birkenstocks on and head right over for a service!




#379757 John Calvin Had It All Wrong

Posted by Ukulelemike on 23 July 2014 - 04:55 PM

OFF TOPIC for a moment:

 

    I notice that, as we have removed those from the forum who clearly stand for false doctrines, LIKE the reformed position, here we are, all of us ultimately in agreement on the subject at hand, and still we are fighting over such things as, 'should we even care what a reformed person believes about his words' and 'does it matter how they define terminology?'.  Are are all of us against the doctrine, all agree it is wrong, but now, we aregue over how we deal with it. That's pretty sad, folks.

 

  I guess it boils down to, do we want to successfully discuss the subject with a Calvinist or not? If not, that's fine, it doesn't matter how they define terms, let them continue. If you want to discuss it with them, you'd best understand what they mean when they talk, or there's going to be a lot of confusion. 

 

Like many false groups, Mormons, JW's Catholics, etc, Calvinists change the meanings of biblical terminology to fit their doctrine. Ask a Mormon about gospel, and they will say they believe it. If we don't know that for them, the gospel is all about one's way of life, and not the death for our sins, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we might well go on our merry way thinking they are saved. A good example there is Glenn Beck. So with the Calvinist, if we want to discuss it, we'd best understand what they mean when they speak.

 

I guess my point it, after reading so much here, we all seem to agree-but we are arguning minute, non-issues about the subject at hand. Are we so desirous to argue that even in agreement we must argue?




#379753 When Is The Church Not The Church?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 23 July 2014 - 04:01 PM

Good point uke you are on the right track, but I think your conclusion is wrong.  Because most of what we add to God's words are not of God but men.  should we allow men to help us define who and what we are?  or Should we filter it all through solid Bible first and let God define what we are?

The difficulty is in getting people saved, or getting them in the fellowship.

 

in fact, there is a pseudo-denomination that only refers to itself as 'the church'. That's great, but what are they? I agree we shouldn't have to add to ourselves a label, but labels have been added since believers were called Nazarenes, or That Way, or Christians. There has always been a need to identify the followers of Christ, and from the ones we see in the Bible, like I have mentioned above, though these were terms given by men, often as an insult, yet they were embraced and used to identify themselves, or for others to identify them. Why should we not? Men don't define us, we define ourselves-I have chosen to be called independent Fundamental Baptist because I believe the terms, while not specifically used in scripture, (except Baptist), they are biblical things.




#379706 When Is The Church Not The Church?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 23 July 2014 - 10:17 AM

There are local, new testament churches, to which 98% of the NT references are written, and there is the church, overall, the full body of all believers, (despite how many may argue against that, it IS biblical). 

 

The building is not the church, though there is nothing wrong with giving a local body a name with 'church' in the title, to identify it as such. There is little difference between the church at Galatia and Bible baptist church of Herlong. We give them more of a name now, because with so many false groups calling themselves churches, we add so we can identify what we are. If I just say the church at Herlong, well, many will ask, Which One? The AOG? The SBC? The BBC? the Catholics? the mormons? We identify further in the name to show the difference. We may hate denominations, but they DO help to identify WHAT we are. Not necessarily a right/wrong issue, but a necessity today.  




#379594 Choosing A Church

Posted by Ukulelemike on 22 July 2014 - 09:18 AM

When I moved from my hometown to where I'm at today it took a lot of searching before I found a IFBC  when I found one I did not know it had lost it's pastor and had hired a new one which was part of the new evangelical movement 5 years later the church was destroyed and I was looking for another church  there's a lot of the same church's here and I'm not going to join one just to be in church . I did find one about 35 miles from my house but I have not joined because it's an IBC and they use more then bible ( I'm KJO) and I disagree with some of the doctrines taught . l've tried to be a good witness to a lot of it's members but lately things are getting as I have seen before in my last church and it wont be long and ccm will creeping in the doors .

 

I was a Youth Pastor for 20 years until God called me into the evangelist ministry and the mission fields for 7 years and now God is calling me back into the youth ministry but this time I will be starting a church with the youth in our town just recently we had our first meeting and had 35 youth attend a lot of them where young adults whom I taught for many years ( how great the rewards ) whom are born again christian's  IFB we don't have a place to meet regular yet but we are seeking God in prayer daily to bless the ministry for His Glory.

 

We are all called into the ministry and if we can't find a church there is always a need for a new one to be started '' Many times I have taught that On Our Knees God Will Lead "  seeking God Daily in Prayer is our power to do all things in Him for His Glory.

Today Many church's a falling away and It's getting harder to find one that hasn't become worldly and my friend you are in my prayers that God will direct your way to find the right church.

 

Praying

God bless 

Agreed, Brother EK! I always say, if there isn't one nearby, get started on a new one. Even if a person does not believe themself 'called' into ministry, they can always start a work, and pray for a pastor to come to lead. But I have known some outstanding, godly, Spirit-filled pastors who didn't believe they were 'called', they just saw a need and sought to help fulfill it, and the Lord used them mightily. The attitude of "use me" by a Christian can find them in many amazing places and situations they may not feel called to, but the way I see it, God may not have to 'call' if one is ready to go already! He just opens a door, and we are ready to pass through without any more invitation.




#379552 Paradise And Abraham's Bosom

Posted by Ukulelemike on 21 July 2014 - 11:18 AM

I don't see any verse in the Bible that says Lazarus was in Paradise with the rich man crying out for a drop of water.  I see he was in Abram's Bosom, separate from Hell, separate from Paradise .... nothing more, nothing less.

True, the Bible doesn't call it paradise. Agreed. But was this Abraham's Bosom, or Abraham's bosom, not the name of the location, but of the place of comfort, literally, the bosom, or embrace of Abraham. After all, we see it was Abraham speaking on behalf of Lazarus to the rich man. As well, the rich man could see Abraham and Lazarus, and Abraham could see and speak with the rich man, meaning Lazarus could see and hear him, I would assume, a safe assumption.

 

We DO know wherever it was,it was a place of comfort, a place where Abraham was, a place where the angels took him.

 

As well, as was mentioned above, the thief on the cros was told by Jesus that he would be with him in paradise that very day, yet Jesus still had to preach to the  lost and fulfill His three days in the grave ebfore he would axscend and complete the sacrifice. So it is safe to again assume that the Paradise jesus spoke of wasn't Heaven, but a temporary place, where the thief met with Jesus, Jesus preached and led them out.

 

Yes, there is assumptions in all this-its not clearly spelled out in any one verse, but that's how we read and understand the Bible-by taking it as a whole and putting things together when they fit properly and this all fits quite well.

 

But as always, there's always room for discussion and I don't claim perfect understanding, as I think few here would.




#379547 Paradise And Abraham's Bosom

Posted by Ukulelemike on 21 July 2014 - 08:18 AM

Abraham's Bosom was, actually, ABRAHAM'S BOSOM. in other words, the beggar Lazarus was comforted in the literal bosom, or embrace, of Abraham. Abraham happened to be in Paradise, which was, as has been said before, a separate place from Heaven, as none could yet ascend to Heaven until mankind was redeemed. Jesus went and preached to the spirits in prison, which would be Paradise, because none can go to heaven except they know Christ. Not even Abraham.

 Now, as for Elijah and Enoch, they seem to be different, perhaps a picture of the believers' experience? Both assuemed bodily into Heaven? For what purpose, the Bible doesn't say, and while we can speculate all we like, we'll never know this side of glory, for the hidden things belong to the Lord.




#379384 Anyone Remember When

Posted by Ukulelemike on 17 July 2014 - 09:30 AM

20 years ago it was getting drunk on the holy spirit and the proponents called themselves holy ghost bar tenders.  Now the new generation they are the token the holy spirit and they are the holy ghost dealers.

 

Bunch of trash

And indeed, they are going further with calling their "church" the crack house, and talking about being holy meth heads and acting like they're snorting from the Bible.

 

40 years ago, or more, we had the Jesus People movement, now Calvary Chapel, with Lonnie Frisbee, who found Jesus supposedly while on an LSD trip. They gave us the beginnings of the CCM, melding contemporary hippy music slightly altered to be to or about Jesus. That begn the  purposely emulating the world, and some of the worst of the world, by imitating rebellious rock and roll. So of course, once that's mainstream, we need to go further, so we had spirit drunkenness, and uncontrollable laughter. And wicked begets wicked begets wicked, now the youth have gone further, pretending to get high on Jesus, smoking baby Jesus blunts and snorting the word of God like cocaine. Once the floodgates opened with unscriptural activities in the name of Jesus, the flood waters have risen into full-blown gross apostasy.

 

edited to add: And of course, CCM has moved with it, giving us now 'Christian" death metal and rap and punk and such things, I mean, death metal? Really? Isn't death exactly the opposite of what Christ, who is Life, is all about?  We seve Jesus Christ, the Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, so some have to laugh uncontrollably like idiotic fools and credit the Spirit of God with it. We serve Jesus Christ, who is the Resurrection and the Life and some offer Him death metal music as a sacrifice?  We are told to be "sober, just, holy, temperate," so some have Bible and Brew meetings and act like they are stoned and giggling? 

 

Satan has really scored some heavy points against the name of Jesus, when this is what the world believes to be the churches.






The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500