Jump to content

Ukulelemike

Member Since 17 Oct 2012
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 02:05 PM
-----

#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".




#377921 Sudan Court Releases Woman On Death Row For Marrying Christian

Posted by Ukulelemike on 24 June 2014 - 04:40 PM

I suspect her release was a set-up to entice her husband to some for her, so they could get them both. I fear the worst, but we shall see. Clearly the administration has been pretty-much silent on the whole thing, and I suspect they will remain so.

 

Oh, but in Uganda, we MUSt set snactions against them for being homophobic! Yeah, that's a cause to rally behind! Kill the Christians, but save the gays.




#377902 Deceit, Delusion, And The Destruction Of America

Posted by Ukulelemike on 24 June 2014 - 11:09 AM

We fall due to the sin of pride, whether it be national pride or the pride of the leaders who think themselves above and beyond the laws of the country and the reach of God. We fall for the reason Satan fell, the reason Eve fell and ultimately why most nations have fallen-we have placed ourselves above the throne of God-our ways are greater than His, our minds, our moralities higher than God's.

 

And we WILL fall. Whether this will bring the return of Christ, I don't know, though I suspect not-we may well live a long time as a third-world country before the Lord returns.




#377879 Is There Anything Prophetic About Isis?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 24 June 2014 - 12:20 AM

Yes, there is something prophetic about them:

 

   :But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived."  2Tim 3:13




#377802 Why The Rift?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 23 June 2014 - 11:19 AM

This is why I don't have a board. I used to have trustees, but as they grew old and left, I didn't replace them, as we are not incorporated and don't need them. As a pastor, I am subject to the will of the entire church, not some board-the whole idea is completely unscriptural and those who apply such thing too often find themselves in such a place.

 

I am not above having deacons, but at this point, sad to say, there is no one mature enough to be so. Well, there is one man who is faithful to attendance and seeks to do some Bible studies-he is a little immature in his understanding, but he's a good man with a good heart toward the Lord and the lost, and that's a great start. This Thursday he will be conducting service as i will be out to pick my daughter up to bring her home. My wife will be there to kind of keep an eye on things; I know how that sounds, but my wife is a pretty mature believer-she doesn't run anything, as that's unscriptural, (except the music machine for hymns, she runs that), but I know she will give me a good report as to what and how he does.




#377661 Why The Rift?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 21 June 2014 - 05:23 PM

True and I appreciate the advice, I am learning and growing. To foster my own personal growth is one of the reasons I decided to start the blog.

As for what am I trying to accomplish, I wish to bring truth to the forth front. Truth in every area. No matter how uncomfortable or ugly it may be. Truth, though it may not agree with our presuppitions. Every point that I mentioned (I'll get around to validating them) is in some measure an example of an unwillingness to confront or deal with the truth.

Thank you, and as I said before, I apologize for assuming you would not come back. Keep in mind, you will probably find some criticism here.

 

But, for what its worth, I have seen much of what you have seen, and you will see others who have, as well, in the IFB circles. At this, you may wonder why many of us have chosen to remain IFB. I can't speak for any but myself, and I won't try, but personally, I remain IFB because from a doctrinal standpoint, I have found it to be, at its core, about the best out there. Mind you, that's removing man's opinions, and let's face ,it, we're all full of those. I like the independent nature of it, and believe that is scriptural; I believe in approaching the Bible literally whenever possible, with exception of clear analogy or symbolism, (ie, Jesus is a door, et al). I like that it is there that I learned the importance of understanding scripture by context,. And believe it or not, it was in the IBF church that had the most initial influence on my life, that I learned that you CAN and SHOULD question a pastor if there is a disagreement, (though of course it is to be done respectfully and from the Bible, not opinion or feeling). My pastor used to say, "If you disagree, that's fine; come see me after service, but bring your Bible because I'm not interested in feelings and opinions, and we'll reason together." 

 

So now I pastor a small IBF church in a small community and try to pass on the things I have learned. I like expository preaching AND topical preaching-they both have their place and can both be found in scripture.

 

So, basically, I am still IFB becuase I believe in the core ideology behind it, not for the men or the associations-I lost many of the men when I had to leave the pre-trib rapture position. If I am wrong I will answer to God, but I won't go back to what my study has shown me to be an error, not for any men's approval. And I will remains an IFB for the sam reason.




#377648 Why The Rift?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 21 June 2014 - 04:48 PM

THough somehow I suspect you won't be back to read any responses to this, rather, you just want to grind your axe and depart, yet I will respond. If I am wrong about you, I apologize.

 

A few things about your article.

 

1: I recommend you giving some names and examples. If you are going to make accusations, which on the whole I am not disputing problems, but you need to be prepared to lay out a few details. I certainly am well aware of some scandals in the IFB circles, and most of the IBF folks I know have made no bones of speaking against them. But how can we agree or disagree or even learn if you don't give us some examples?

 

2: You cannot treat all IFB's as a single entity under one denominational statement-we are independent for a reason. I have been a part of IFB churches for many years, maybe 25, and have been in large ones and small ones and while there have been similarities, there have been many differences, as well. One of the big issues I have seen in some of the larger ones, though not all, is the Pastor=King mentality; don't question the pastor, ever, that's like questioning God Himself. I never bought into that, and it is what was behind the whole issue with Jack Schaap-he was raised in it, married into it and groomed to be so. A pastor is just a sheep who leads the other sheep under the Shepherd.

 

3: Billy Sunday, Billy Graham Spurgeon, McArthur, these are all just men-some like some more than others. That Billy Sunday worked with ther churches to bring his meetings to a town are not at all like Billy Graham deliberately turning over potential converts to Catholic priests and Mormon workers. Big difference in methods and results. But they are still just men. And men like men no matter which kind of church you go to-you'll never be happy there.

 

The biggest thing you left out was, what will you do now? Where will you go? What are you even looking for? I have heard the complaints and the arguments, but too often, these folks just rejecet God and His churches and end up castaways. What are you seeking? A church that teaches right doctrine by a perfect man? You'll never find it. What are your plans?




#377619 What Is Life After Death...

Posted by Ukulelemike on 21 June 2014 - 12:44 PM

Oh. Okay. I guess it is more of a conglomeration of verses and what they say, rather than a 'cut and dried' kinda thing.

I don't think it's a 'yin yang' type of teaching, if that's where you are going. I don't believe that way.

I just 'get' from scripture that God will bless his own, and since the dead who are lost are not his, that he curses them as much as he blesses

the dead in Christ.

And to the world, God could not be that unjust.

Interestingly, the world rejects the idea that God will punish anyone for eternity, and yet many of those who reject it support the very yin and yang theory you mention-on the one hand they believe in the equal opposites, but on the other, they reject the eternal practicability of it. Especially as applies to themselves, because usually those who hold to such thigs consider themselves to be the white side, not the black.






The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500