Jump to content

Ukulelemike

Member Since 17 Oct 2012
Offline Last Active Today, 08:21 AM
-----

#379106 What About Our 'own' Convictions?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 13 July 2014 - 03:26 PM

And yet the picture that baptism presents, death burial and resurrection of Christ, as well as the terminology applied to the act, ie, going down into and coming up out of, the water, clearly indicate the mode. There comes a time when enough has been said and common sense must take up the mantle. If pouring or sprinkling as the mode of the baptisms of John or the baptism by Phillip of the eunuch, there would be no reason at all for going down into the water-what a waste, if one could just scoop up a handful of water and pour it on them, rather than going down into the water and pouring a little on their heads.

 

as well, Israel going through the Red Sea was a picture of baptism, as was the passing under the cloud, the pillar which was the presence of the Lord, UNDER the cloud and THROUGH the sea, and were baptized into Moses in the cloud and the sea. Under and through-pictures of baptism. And granted, they did not actually go INTO the water, yet the inference is clear, under and through. (1Cor 10:1,2).

 

As well, it is pure assumption on your part that the words would mean different things in Kione than classic Greek. 

 

As for your medical example, I, too have done a pouring baptism for much the same reason: a woman very sick and could not be immersed, but she desired to obey the Lord, so we poured-the heart is very important, but when the ability is present, it should always fllow the mode clearly laid out in scripture. I happen to see it quite clearly, though implied, but with no implication of any other.




#379053 What About Our 'own' Convictions?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 12 July 2014 - 10:27 AM

The reason there is disagreement on such words as Baptize is because a false meaning to it was applied by a pagan religion that happened to force their rule over much of the world for a long time, and hence, the reason there is a disagreement. That's why its good to go back, when one is able, to see what it meant to those of that time. And having something like extra-biblical pickle-making instructions that tell you to baptize your cucumbers in vinegar, helps.




#378959 Way Of Life

Posted by Ukulelemike on 10 July 2014 - 08:20 AM

I agree, but in the meantime, feel welcome to go to the website, as I do and maybe share the good topics here!

 

As a side note on the subject, if you have not done so, he has some good e-books  and many he provides for free download. I just put some on my phone to read betimes. I have the Collapse of Separation among IFB Churches, Pastor's Authority and church's responsibility, (better than you might think), In the Footsteps of the Bible Translators, The Seven churches of revelation, and Lying Evolutionary Art.  All free, and there are a lot more offerings, as well. If you haven't read any of his books, oit gives you a good chance to get a feel for the doctrines he teaches before investing in some of his things, (which I have also done).

 

No, I don't work for David Cloud and no, I don't agree with him everywhere, but good is good.




#378927 "traditions"

Posted by Ukulelemike on 09 July 2014 - 02:01 PM

Paul taught the word of God-the doctrines of the Lord as they were delivered to him by revelation. Thus, the 'traditions' that he would encourage them to follow must be those doctrines of the Lord. Why he chose the word 'tradition' over 'doctrine' in this case is perhaps a good question to pose, but I suspect Paul would not demand they hold to traditions that were anything other than the doctrines of the Lord.

 

And excuse me if I used the term 'true doctrines' trying to clarify them away from what people might normally consider a 'tradition' to be, ie, a tradtion of men. The Bible mentions doctrines of God and doctrines of devils-it shouldn't take much discernment, particularly considering the context of this discussion, what I meant when I used such a term.

 

My reasoning in not including the first definition of 'tradition' here is that it doesn't fit the context. ie, Paul delivered traditions to them-so he traditioned the traditions to them? That one clearly didn't fit the context of the meaning in the verses you gave, while the second two would. That I included the definiton numbers of 2 and 3, AND mentioned that I was only including the ones that fit the context, wasn't at all disingenuous-to remove them and pretend the first didn't exist would be disingenuous. Just didn't see the point in including it-waste of space.

 

As for the 'traditions', or the practices delivered by Paul to them, it would include such as:

 

1Thes 4:1-6:

   "Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.

   For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.

   For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

   That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

   Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:

That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified" 

 

And other traditions or doctrines, or mentioned here, commandments, that Paul taught the Thessalonian church in the epistles to them, as well as anything they learned from Him in other epistles that had been passed to them from other churches, or taught to them by word of mouth when He taught them in person.

 

No reason to only concern ourselves with just the second epistle-I would believe all his teachings would be under consideration. Notice paul says in 2:15, 'whether by word or our epistle" he sent them two epistles, and he also includes word, hence, oral teaching.




#378900 "traditions"

Posted by Ukulelemike on 09 July 2014 - 08:15 AM

Tradition, per Websters 1828: (those that apply to the context)

 

  2. The delivery of opinions,doctrines, practices,rites and customs from father to son, or from ancestors to posterity; the transmission of any opinions or practice from forefathers to descendants by oral communication, without written memorials. Thus children derive their vernacular language chiefly from tradition. Most of our early notions are received by tradition from our parents.

 

3. That which is handed down from age to age by oral communication. The Jews pay great regard to tradition in matters of religion, as do the Romanists. Protestants reject the authority of tradition in sacred things, and rely only on the written word. Traditions may be good or bad, true or false.

 

  So a tradition is something handed down, through generations, or from person to person. Some can be true, some false, not necessarily man-made. So Paul handed down true doctrines of God as traditions, things to be adhered to.




#378843 Do You Have Your Communion Kit?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 08 July 2014 - 01:51 PM

This fellow who had the mail-in ordination as a chaplain was telling my wife and I that he was going to get his bishop's ordination, and then he would have authority as the area bishop over our church and all the churches in the area. We tried to tell him that such a thing would be ignored and wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. But he still insisted, so my wife and I made a plan to teach him a lesson.

 

One thing this man was right about, was that he believed a woman shouldn't be a pastor/leader, etc in a church. Sooooo....

 

My wife applied to the same company, now online, and for all of $50, and a few questions, NONE of which had anything to do with "Are you born again?", and my wife became an O-FISHAL bishop. She got a nice certificate, (suitable for framing), and a card to carry about-she's a card-carrying bishop, and some various paperwork about what she could do AS a bishop. And we went and she showed it to this fellow.

 

  Well, he was a bit confused, because on the one hand he didn't believe in a woman being a bishop, but on the other hand, to reject her authority would show, (her having been approved by the same group that approved him), that it would nullify his own perceived authority he received from them.

 

Later, he dumped the 'chaplain' thing and, through a DIFFERENT company, got his Evangelist credentials. But he never agains sought to be a bishop.

 

Lesson learned. And once in a while we pull out her certificate and have a laugh.




#378756 Do You Have Your Communion Kit?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 07 July 2014 - 08:18 AM

It does seem to kind of be a catholc-thing.

 

  I fellow I knew, who considered himself a chaplain, having received his ordination through a mail-in company, (he always refered to himself as the chaplain of whatever town he was living in, "Hi, I'm chaplain Mitch Easterday, chaplain of Herlong"), and he had his own private communion set, of which he was very proud. Took it with him all the time just in case there needed to be an emergency communion. I never say him do it, but I assume he did the whole transubstantiation thing, though I doubt Jesus ever showed up, since he couldn't control his own dogs,much less the Saviour of the world.  

 

He wasn't exactly Catholic, but held to certain tenants of it, while rejecting others. Kind of like many so-cllaed Christians today




#378745 Philemon

Posted by Ukulelemike on 06 July 2014 - 10:17 PM

Well, I suspect we are straining at a gnat in this incident, concerning lan guages-I have little doubt Jesus spoke the language He needed to depending upon who He spoke to-He was raised in Galilee, and they spoke araaic there, but being a carpenter, He probably had reason to speak in various languages in plying His trade. So really, does it matter? I understand the point certainly, that we can't assume Jesus spoke such and such, because the Bible doesn't say. Like we can't assume certain things about Philemon and Onesimus-over time people have filled in the blanks as they have pleased-I once read that the young man in the book of Mark who was with the disciples in the garden after the last supper, who was just wearing a linen sheet around his naked body, and ran away naked when the guards tried to catch him, was Mark, who penned the book of Mark. Was it? Maybe, maybe not-we'll never know this side of Heaven.

 

I think speculation is fine, so long as it always remains firmly in the book of 2Opinions.




#378657 What About Our 'own' Convictions?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 04 July 2014 - 11:55 AM

Maybe this all comes down to one question, then: Can we, as believers, really KNOW the full truth of scripture? Is it possible? If it is, why don't we, because assumably we are all believers, many well-studied, prayed-up and seeking the truth-why do we come to so many different conclusions, sometimes even on the basics?

 

For instance: I was reading about Sir Isaac Newton the other day. Clearly a very intelligent guy, a believer in Christ and the Bible, yet he rejcted the trinity, and believed that one of the worst sins one could commit was to worship Jesus as God.

 

WHY don't we get it? Is it because of a natural proclivity to approach things from our own inborn biases? Do we accidentally lift certain teachers and preachers to a pedestal and tend to lean toward their understanding? Are we leaning on our OWN understanding, something, by the way, we are told NOT to do?

 

I posit that the word of God was written so that we can understand it, and we are given the Spirit of God to guide us in that truth, and if we don't get it, it is our own fault.  The question then, is, why? What are we doing wring? One thing the Lord desires is that His people be in one accord. How can we acomplish that? Is it pride? Worldly wisdom? Not dying to self enough? What keeps us from truly KNOWING?




#378581 Paul Chappell - Are You A Servant Leader Or Simply A Ministry Manager?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 03 July 2014 - 10:49 AM

I have to respectfully cry "foul", when anecdotal evidence is presented. We have two distinct examples , in the NT, of churches with multiple elders. We have no distinct examples of one with a singular bishop. Obviously, there is a point in most works, at the beginning, where one church planter is plowing. So, noone can say that no church ever has only one elder. And that isn't the problem, in our 21st Century IFB churches. The problem is the false doctrine of "God called me to be your leader, so to appoint another elder would be to rebel against God". Or to teach that an individual church should only have a aingular earthly head, or to take the term: "pastor", clearly defined as a gift, and make it into an imaginary office. We avoid the term "Bishop", because Philippi clearly had multiple Bishops. We drag a term out, that is only mentioned once in the NT (a part of a set, and in the plural, FTR), "pastor", and we make it the incredible putty term, that conforms to our every wind of doctrinal error. If The Scripture is truly our final authority, in all matters of faith and PRACTICE, then we should strive to follow the Scriptural examples of Ephesus, and Philippi, and not anecdotes of failed experiments.

Mind you I wasn't meaning to make mine anectodal evidence, rather telling a story associated with the comment before mine, not to prove any point other than, perhaps, that there needs to be SOME SORT of leadership, and in those 'churches' who try to have NO leadership tend to fail, because, again whether one or multiple, whether co-leadership and equal authority or layers of authority, there needs to be something,  I




#378550 Is A Mohawk Sin?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 02 July 2014 - 04:53 PM

As far as I know, the only NT scripture that speaks in men's hair is in 1Cor 11, where it says it is a shame for a man to have long hair. Why is it a shame? because long hair was given to the woman as he glory, as a covering because in wearing it long, it represents her acceptance of her husband's, (of unmarried, father or brother), authority, or headship, over her. As such, wearing her hair long, she is submissive to her husband, thus to God, and is fit to pray and speak the things of God.

 

So when a man wears his hair long, he is showing himself as a woman, not fit to be in a leadership place in his family, thus, not accepting of the Lord's leadership-he is as a woman, and is thereby not fit to pray or speak the word of God.

 

Hence its a shame because he is showing himself to be as a woman. And despite what current culture says, a man should be a man and show himself a man, which includes short hair. How short? If you need to ask, "Is it short enough?, it probably isn't.




#378549 Paul Chappell - Are You A Servant Leader Or Simply A Ministry Manager?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 02 July 2014 - 04:41 PM

One thing the "multiple elder" people always forget is that no matter how much they beat that drum, somebody in that group is going to rise to the top and start leading the group.  Always.  Without fail. 

The result is that they end up with the same scenario but just under a different color.  Somebody must lead.  A group cannot lead another group without having somebody running both groups.  It never works.

Ageeed

 

I had a friend who left our church and joined with a group who had left the mennonites, though they still held to some of the things that they did, (headcoverings, and such). I was sorry to see him go, but I knew the group and they were pretty sound in doctrine.  So, after he had been meeting with them for a little while, I asked him who was going to lead. He said, no, no leader, we are just a bunch joined together in Christ's name as a church.

  So I told him that a church must have some sort of leadership or it isn't a church, there must be some kind of organization, (not BE an organization). He said, Well, I'll talk to the others and see what they think. So later he asked me to come and present to the church why I thought they ought to have leadership of some sort, so I did.

 

stay with me, now

 

Of course, first I reminded them that I was in no way seeking to control or otherwise direct what they did: they were before the Lord and answerable only to Him, it was just my counsel as it was requested, and I proceeded to show how much emphasis the scripture puts upon bishops, elders, leadership in general, (ie, Paul directing Titus to ordain elders in all the cities, as it was lacking, and such). I presented a pretty solid case. Mind you, it was not for A PASTOR, but for leadership, that a church MUST have some sort of leadership.

 

A week or so later, my firned advised me that the men as a whole disagreed with me, that they were content to just all share the duties of teaching and have no head but Christ. So I told him to wish them all good luck with it.

 

Not 6 months went by, but that they had disbanded. Why? because one man clearly began to press his authority over the others, wanting to make the decisions, but not as 'leader' or anything-though he acted that way, and it bugged everyone and they separated. And i told my wife that was what would happen.

 

It was sad, but see, you are right, Steve-someone just HAD to fill the clearly, glaringly empty spot of leadership. A flock is made to have a shepherd, and most shepherds have undershepherds as well. A church is a flock under The Shepherd and below Him, His undershepherds. Our Shepherd cannot be present physically, but we are flesh and need a leader, or leaders of flesh, so He appoints bishops, pastors, elders, preachers, teachers to do that, with each church putting in place what they percieve the need to be.




#378474 Paul Chappell - Are You A Servant Leader Or Simply A Ministry Manager?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 01 July 2014 - 03:55 PM

I will say one thing on this.

 

  In Acts 15, we have Paul meeting with the Jerusalem church leaders, specifically the Apostles. Now, certainly, we see a group in leadership, all ordained of God, save Matthias, who was ordained by the other Apostles, (but that's for another post). Clearly we see a conversation occur, and peter speaks him mind, but it is James who gives the final word, in his own words, ""Therefore my sentence is..."  

 

While clearly the group acted as a whole, there was seen a need to have a single one who spoke for the whole, who, if you will, gave sentence, a final ruling.

 

I believe this is a good example of a single head under Christ, though still in proper persepctive as one of a group. The bishop, perhaps?

 

I don't know that any of the Apostles saw James as their leader, but he had clearly been given the authority to give the final word on such a subject. I am curious: how is this any difference from a church that calls and approves a pastor? The Pastor teaches and leads, give the final word, yet he himself is subject TO the church, as well as to the Lord as a servant.

 

I think the whole answer to this is, how does a church 'leader' view himself, and how does the church view him? If he is unquestionable, stands as lord and master, not to be challenged by the 'people', then this is certainly a nicolaitan example. But if he leads because he has been chosen to lead, by approval, and remains always answerable to the whole, then I see no problem with it. And if the church decides to have more than one, co-leaders, that's good and biblical, or a senior leader with leaders under him, this is fine, as well.  But when a preacher becomes an almighty ruler, as we know does happen, then we are in dangerous territory.




#378348 Why The Hypocrisy?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 29 June 2014 - 03:35 PM

my point was Luther stated where he got the song from and that he changed the lyrics.  He did indeed write the score too he was the one who put musick other than voices to the song he changed.  So happy was correct also.  But the roots of the song were indeed a returning battle song sung by old German soldiers and later in the beer haus where they and Martin Luther frequented.

Be interested in seeing a quote.

 

Here's something, though: (from http://www.av1611.or.../cqluther.html)

 

"Of the melodies to Luther’s 37 chorales, 15 were composed by Luther himself, 13 came from Latin hymns of Latin service music, 4 were derived from German religious folk songs, 2 had originally been religious pilgrims’ songs, 2 are of unknown origin, and one came directly from a secular folk song." (Data compiled from Squire, pp. 446-447; Leupold, ed., Liturgy and Hymns; and Strodach, ed., Works of Martin Luther, VI)

 

NOTE: The one secular song was from a popular pre-Reformation (not a drinking tune!) secular song, "I Arrived from an Alien Country," and was used as the melody for the Christmas hymn, "From Heaven on High I Come to You", the first stanza Luther patterned after the folk song.
(source: Robert D. Harrell, Martin Luther, His Music, His Message, p. 18)
 

And here's an interesting FACT — not only that, because of it’s worldly association, Luther later changed the tune!

According to historian Paul Nettl, Luther changed the tune because:

 

 "Luther was embarrassed to hear the tune of his Christmas hymn sung in inns and dance halls." (Paul Nettl, Luther and Music, p. 48)

 

After researching every published work dealing with Luther’s music, Robert Harrell says point-blank:

Harrell also says:"None of the works dealing with Luther’s music can trace a single melody of his back to a drinking song." (Robert D. Harrell, Martin Luther, His Music, His Message, p. 34)

 

Furthermore, Martin Luther was very concerned over the words and tunes of his music. It seems obvious to this writer that using Luther’s music as an historical precedent for using rock and other worldly music in our churches today is completely incongruous with the facts of history.

 

Luther did not use the barroom songs of his day, nor did he use even the worldly music of his day. In fact, he was extremely cautious in protecting the Word of God from any admixture of worldly elements. This can be seen in his words: ‘I wish to compose sacred hymns so that the Word of God may dwell among the people also by means of songs.’"
(Robert D. Harrell, Martin Luther, His Music, His Message, p. 36)

"But I would like to avoid any new words or the language used at court. [DTM – Is that ever contrary to the CCMers who imitate the rock world’s slang and lingo; like dcTalk’s "Jesus Freak"] In order to be understood by the people, only the simplest and the most common words should be used for singing; at the same time, however, they should be pure and apt; and further, the sense should be clear and as close as possible to the psalm."
(Martin Luther, "To George Spalatin," Letters II, p. 69)




#378281 An Open Letter To The Mods

Posted by Ukulelemike on 28 June 2014 - 06:39 PM

How about just, "Youre welcome".






The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500