Jump to content


Member Since 17 Oct 2012
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 06:53 PM

#326466 How I Study The Word

Posted by Ukulelemike on 24 April 2013 - 10:56 AM

Studying the Word of God in the English translation of the King James version is ok most of the time. But to get the true intended meaning of any passage I look at it in the language the authors spoke and wrote it in.  I always use the King James and never the "Textus Receptus" or Latin received text for my studies.


We believe in the inspired Word of God. The word inspired means God breathed or God spoke. When God spoke to His servants the prophets, He spoke to them in the language they also spoke, understood, and wrote. So one of the most important parts of my hermeneutic is to research the definition of the words in the text in the language it was written in and look at how those same words are used elsewhere in the bible...and accept the definition of those words regardless if it goes against what I already believe.


I approach the scriptures as unbiased as I can.  I'm working out my own salvation.  I've been studying God's Word since 1973. Most serious students of God's Word study it in the KJV.  Too often they approach it in the light of what they already believe i.e. with their already pre-conceived ideas. Too often they're unwilling to reconsider other ideas especially about prophecy. I just don't believe that any one of us has all the truth. 


I've always questioned everything. When I study the scriptures I look at them from every angle to see what others believe.  I look at all the resources I have available, especially the lexicons. I look at how key words are used elsewhere in the bible and I like to show people how I arrive at my conclusions.  I look at the context of the passage, when and to whom it was written, if it's past or future, and keep it simple and logical. I've found that the simplest interpretation is usually the right one.


2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

"For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little." (Isaiah 28:10).

You do realize that the King James version was bilt on the compilation of the Textus Receptus, don't you?


One must be very careful in trying to study the original languages, because all we have today are men's ideas as to what those meant. If you take any number of different Greek Bible dictionaries, you will find different meanings to various words. As well, since we don't have the autographa today, we need then to choose which of many different Greek texts to use. If not using a Textus Receptus, you are probably using a Westcott/Hort Greek text, which is the one NOT based on TR, but on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, primarily, two corrupt Alexandrian texts.


To not study in the KJV, then, tells me that you dont trust that the Lord can, and has, preserved His word in English for His people, I assume. Then everyone must be a scholar in koine Greek, ancient Hebrew and Chaldean to understand the word of God? And that's assuming a reliable copy of these can even be found to use.


Now, I agree that giving one's self some training in history, to understand better the context of the writings, some understanding of the culture and the time is a good thing-you don't have to be a scholar, just aware.   BUt also, being in a good, New testament, Bible-believeing/teaching church under godly leadership can be a help, as well, since it IS highly promoted in the Bible, and I believe absolutely necessary to keep from moving into apostasy, since it is the body of Christ. When a child of God removes himself from the local body, (albeit, a right one), they become a member without a body. Yes, we are part of the overall body, if we are born again, but the Bible is clear that the local body is extremely important, as well, seeing as how most of the New Testament is written either TO or ABOUT the local bodies. Thus, to be removed from it, and to 'go it alone', is dangerous. I have seen, time and again, many knowledgable Christians who get out of church, and within a year have moved into all kinds of weird , always-changing doctrines. So I hope you are part of a good NT church.

#326464 Catholic Persecution of Christians

Posted by Ukulelemike on 24 April 2013 - 10:41 AM


  "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph 2:8,9)


Cahtolic Church:


“If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).


“If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).


“For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, 'the work of our redemption is accomplished,' and it is through the liturgy, especially, that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church” (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Introduction, para. 2).


“As often as the sacrifice of the cross by which 'Christ our Pasch is sacrificed' (1 Cor. 5:7) is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter 1, 3, p. 324).


“From the most ancient times in the Church good works were also offered to God for the salvation of sinners, particularly the works which human weakness finds hard. Because the sufferings of the martyrs for the faith and for God's law were thought to be very valuable, penitents used to turn to the martyrs to be helped by their merits to obtain a more speedy reconciliation from the bishops. Indeed, the prayers and good works of holy people were regarded as of such great value that it could be asserted that the penitent was washed, cleansed and redeemed with the help of the entire Christian people” (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 3, 6, pp. 78,79).


You cannot take one aspect of scripture and apply it as the end-all, be-all of whether a church is true or false. The Bible is a big book, made up of 66 books, all of which are the very word of God, and are to be taken as a whole. When a church has official statements that disagree with clear scripture, that must be marked as a sign that it may be a false church. Now, there are those that have error, and error can be reparied-it doesn't necessarily mean false, just error. But when an organization piles error upon error, and even goes to such lengths to supress any disagreement to those errors, as to kill any who publicly disagree, THAT is a false church, and the enemy of Christ. Remember, Jesus said,

" They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service."

This doesn't refer just to the Jews, but many, and for hundreds of years, the RCC killed, tortured and persecuted millions of Jews and true Christians, all while holding a cross and declaring the name of Jesus. Whether or not they seem to nhave become a benevolent organization today does not change the fact of their murderous history, a history which has never been repented of, and, indeed, is often denied. 


They are a false church, who bow to idols, who pray to the dead, who follow a man and traditions over God and His word.

#326457 Change We Can Believe In!?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 24 April 2013 - 09:50 AM

I don't think there are any on OB who were taken in by this campaign slogan from now President Obama's 2008 campaign. I'm fairly sure, most of us at OB know faith (belief) can't be placed in a moving target (change). 


We can put our faith-trust-belief-confidence in Jesus Christ the Lord and very God. (John 10:30 "I and my Father are one." Exodus 15:18 "The LORD shall reign for ever and ever." ...and many other verses which assure us of God's immutability)


I was reading in Proverbs this morning and took notice of the following two verses. Do you think the truth from the following two verses can be seen in U.S. government today?

Pr 24:21 My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change:
Pr 24:22 For their calamity shall rise suddenly; and who knoweth the ruin of them both?


I have faith in God that he will take care of President Obama's "change;" how and when is entirely up to him. It may be that you or I or a group could be the instrument of God's righteousness...we don't know. 

Change I can believe in? Sure I agree! Because on paydays, with the high cost of everything under Obama, all I have left the next day is change!

#326309 James The Christian

Posted by Ukulelemike on 23 April 2013 - 07:40 AM

Hey Mike, just a couple of questions to hopefully clear up some confusion. The part of your testimony describing the fellow running across the highway, you described how your wife did not get saved judging by her current lifestyle. My first question is that I am wondering if your wife is saved now? Secondly, if she is not, wouldn't you holding the office of Pastor not fully match up with the qualifications outlined in 1 Timothy 3?


1 Timothy 3:4-5 - "4One that ruleth his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)"


The office of a bishop is higher than that of a deacon, and the deacon's wives are called to "be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things." - 1 Timothy 3:12


I pray you don't feel like I am challenging or attacking you. I just wanted to get clarification, and the original source is the best place to get it!

Nt at all. No, this is no longer my wife. She left, not wanting any part of the Christian lifestyle, long before I became a pastor. Now, I know that will open up a whole other can of worms, which I suspect we will find ourselves in disagreement about, whether a divorced man can be a pastor. But I will say that, if I married, as a believer, an unbeliever, does the Lord honor that marriage, since it is clearly apart from His will? Many say it doesn't matter,-once you are married you are married forever in God's eyes, but I don't see that. The Bible gives acceptable reasons for divorce, among them being a: fornication-when she left, she left specifically to move in with another man, with whom she lived for 6 months, and shared a bed with him: if the Lord did recognize that marriage, which was wrong in the first place, then I was free from her with this, and no longer bound. And b: Paul tells us that if our spouse is unsaved and they wish to remain, remain with them, but if they leave, let them leave, because we are not bound to them. She has rejected Christ and Christianity for these last 20 years, living a pagan/bisexual, multi-partnered lifestyle and has never shown one iota of conscience toward the Lord. I believe, according to God's word, that I am free from her.


On the same note, while difficult to explain, it was, and has been, made wuite clear to me that I am exactly where I am supposed to be. I tried to get out of my dedication to full-time service, since long before I actually stepped into a pupit. Interestingly, each church I have gone to, from Virginia to Reno to San Diego, all IFB churches, which are notoriously against divorced pastors, has had pastors that taught that the gifts and callings of God are without repentance-that God can still use me, even as a pastor. And I did not choose those churches because they taught this-they are just where I ended up. I really didn't even have to go looking for a church, it came to me, though that's a long story which I won't relate here. And during my time here, I have offerred many times to the Lord that if it was not His will for me to be here, to bring someone who could take the church, and I would step down, yet that has not happened. The offer still stands, by the way, and the Lord is aware of it.

#326308 Catholic Persecution of Christians

Posted by Ukulelemike on 23 April 2013 - 07:12 AM

I've seen it all before.  Makes no sense to me either.


I can see that it's a real threat to the world....that is "your world."

What you say makes no sense. My world is not threatened, because I know the truth, and it has set me free from the bondage of any such lies as are found in the Roman system, the same as the lies found in Mormonism, Jehovah's (false) Witnesses, 7th Day Adventism, and the many other cults that are works-based religions that worship false gods and man-made systems.


That your doctrine is, by your admission, your own, you have exposed yourself as a fasle teacher, a wolf; nowhere has the Lord given us permission to have our own doctrine, but to follow the faith once delivered unto the saints. I suspect you are of the type that has more or less rejected all other walks in favor of your own, stitched together with your reasoning, and interpret scripture as something that can be picked and chosen from according to your will. If so, well, good luck with that.


Tell me, upon what do you place your hopes for etenal life, for the salvation of your soul? A eucharist? A baptism? Your good, hard works?

#326240 Catholic Persecution of Christians

Posted by Ukulelemike on 22 April 2013 - 12:21 PM

What does it matter.  Are you bent on slandering the church?  Catholicism no longer persecutes people.  Forgive and forget!

Look at what's going on in the world today.  Islam is bent on world domination through demographics and terrorism.  Does that strike a nerve in you somehow?  or is it going to take the next 911 to convince you.


The American Hiroshima is just around the corner.

In the words of one Muslim...



A friend of mine has a newspaper from Mexico City from just a couple years ago. In the paper is an advertisement  from the Catholic church there, posting a bounty for all Christian Missionaries and pastors killed. Its real, I've seen it. That they don't persecute in America doesn't mean they don't in third-world areas where they still have power. Also of note is that in many such countries, Catholics differentiate themselves from Christian-they don't claim the title-they are Catholic, not Christian.


No doubt that the Muslims are a greater threat physically, but spiritually, the RCC is a greater enemy, since so many are fooled into believeing they are Christian when they are nothing of the sort, but are the pagan offspring of Babylon. Their festivals and feasts are all of pagan origin, their use of idols and statues forbidden by the word of God, their Mariolatry straight out of Babylon's worship of the queen of Heaven. 

#326239 I Hear They're Going To Ban

Posted by Ukulelemike on 22 April 2013 - 12:08 PM

I'm a gun owner but refuse to have the cowboy mentality that most gun owners have.


Did your car transport you to church??? Or did you transport yourself to Church.  Does a pipe wrench turn the pipe???  Or did you turn the pipe?


Did the hammer pound the nail in???  Or did you pound the nail in.


It's kind of like saying,  It's not the Hiroshima bomb that killed 200,000 people....It's the Enola gay!

It's not the bubonic plague that killed 30 million people....it's the fleas on the rats!


See how foolish that kind of thinking really is???


What makes people think that simply because someone is a law abiding citizen they can also be a responsible a gun owner?  I'm a law abiding citizen but I'm not a responsible surgeon!  The problem with politics is that people put their politics above their common sense! 

Again you are speaking of the difference between the tool and the arm and hand needed to make the tool work. And it wasn't just the fleas that brought the plague, but generally unsanitary conditions that brought it about.


I understand what you mean-a man can't shoot a gun without having a gun, any more than he can pound a nail without a hammer, but neither can the gun shoot or the hammer pond without the hand to move them with intent. If you don't have a hammer, you can pound a nail with a rock, or a wrench, or a shoe. So a man can kill someone without a gun, by using a hammer, or a rock, or a nail-or a shoe, as you mentioned. Just as many things can become a tool to pound a nail, so many things can become a tool to kill a man-the one thing they ALL have in common is the hand of the man with the intent to kill. I could kill a man with a ukulele string, or use the string to play my ukulele. Intent of the man is the difference, and this is why that must be the focus, not the tool.

#326238 I Hear They're Going To Ban

Posted by Ukulelemike on 22 April 2013 - 12:02 PM

Hi Mike


Yeah but what about the trade-off between personal responsibility vs. pre-emptively not giving crazies easy access to very destructive weapons? Most people I've met--including most on this forum--side with gun control, as most believe the public shouldn't have unfettered access to rockets, land mines, mustard gas, nukes etc. Where do you stand on gun control, Ukelemike? No weapons, some weapons or all weapons?





If you get into some of the original intent documents of the founders, you find that one primary purpose of the 2nd Ammendment, was to keep the government from getting out of control. Thus, the purpose then woud conclude that an average, responsible citizen should have access to those weapons that would reasonably be equal to that which the government has access to, otherwise it is lop-sided and the citizen becomes a subject. That is essentially what has happened already-honestly, if the government was to set the military on the populace, no amount of semi-auto guns and shotguns would prove any worth-we have already allowed them to get out of control. I believe there should be no gun control at all-the responsible, freedom-loving citizens would keep the crazies and criminals under control. And honestly, most of the current crazies are only such because they are nedicated, or they are the rsult of poor parental nutrition or parental drug/alcohol use. Those obviously impaired we should not be afraid to admit to, and refuse them access for common-sense reasons, and otherwise, arm the populace. Yes, tanks, 50cal, Howitzers, full-auto guns, whatever, with, again, the goal of protection, both from criminals common and political, foreign and domestic.  You would be amazed how polite our society would become.

#326233 Seems There Might Be Hate Towards The Kjb

Posted by Ukulelemike on 22 April 2013 - 11:39 AM

Funny how they speak of the 'golden age' of the church in the 50's as being a time of church-sanctioned racism, when it was pretty much the SBC themselves doing that.


I noticed the primary issue they ignored completely, bith in the text and the comments, (except mine), was the manuscripts behind the KJV and all the others being different sources, and that all the new versions are from a Greek text written by only two men, Westcott and Hort, both unsaved, apostate Anglican priests who had a stated goal of producing a Bible never before seen in Heaven or Earth-not a good goal when dealing with God's eternal, unchanging Word!

#326211 I Hear They're Going To Ban

Posted by Ukulelemike on 22 April 2013 - 10:30 AM

Problem is...


How can you classify pressure cookers, knives, vehicles, or blunt objects like high heal shoes (yes people have been killed by high heal shoes!) by putting them in the same category as guns!  Guns have a "live round," something that pressure cookers and high heal shoes don't have.  Guns were original designed to kill people from long distances away. That's why the Indians wanted them so bad. You can't cook a corned beef in a gun, and you can't shoot a round out of a pressure cooker....unless it has a charge!   You typically don't see people going to war with pressure cookers in their hand....unless they have a CHARGE!  A "live round" has a primer that ignites a charge that launches a projectile thousands of fps.


When I go buy a pressure cooker or a car I don't go to a gun shop.  So it's senseless to classify them, or anything, by putting them in the same category as guns.  Even guns are classified in their own category.  Hand guns, rifles, shotguns, Assault weapons, high healed shoes....

It takes a person wth intent to place a 'live round' into a gun, aim that gun, and squeeze the trigger, to kill someone. Guns aren't just built with 'live rounds' already in the chamber or cylinder. See, that's the whole point of the argument-a gun is what its user makes it: it can be used for defense, for offense, for putting food on the table, for running pesky ravens or other predators away from your farm animals, whatever. Yes, it is made, designed to shoot 'live rounds', that is its purpose, not to cook a corned beef, (though you could sure tenderize it!), but it is the person behind the gun that decides its use, just as the person behind the pipe, or cooker, or fertilizer, or knife, or breifcase, or whatever.  If a person has no access to guns, but intends to kill, they will use whatever is at their disposal to kill-even that thing we use for our corned beef.


By the way, high heels are used to kill-high HEALS are used to bring healing. :biggrin:


Edit: Here is a video that will prove my point: 

#325951 To Whom Were God's Laws Given?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 20 April 2013 - 09:04 AM

O.K. God's laws, given to the Hebrews.

Well, there you go-question answered. Next question? 


Seriously, just joking, lets go on.

#325915 Way Of Life - Ignoring The Sin Of First Baptist Of Hammond

Posted by Ukulelemike on 19 April 2013 - 09:20 PM

I didn't write A TALE OF THREE KINGS. 


I wish I had though, it's a wonderful book and I think any man in the full time ministry should read it once a year.  It will temper that desire within us to throw spears.  The average reader can knock it out in under two hours.


Oh sure, there's a time to point out heresies and all that, but some of us, simply put, are just spear throwers and no different than King Saul. 


I guess I'd say if you're too good to read an un-inspired fictional book about the dangers of the tongue, then maybe you should read James.  There's been plenty of times where I wanted to throw a spear but after I took a breath, read the book of James and prayed about it, I did something different.


You guys don't have a problem with the book of James, do you?

Saul cast a javelin at David because he had an evil spirit from the Lord tormenting him, and he hated David, was jealous of him because of the admiration the people had for him. So, your admonition for us to read this book of fiction maens you believe those who expose error:

  a: Have an evil spirit

  b: Hate the person being targeted SO MUCH that we want them to die

  c: Are jealous of them because of their great place they have with God.


Well, I think you have a lot to learn. It is not an evil spirit which compells me to expose error, but a love of the Lord and His truth, and a concern for those who are taken in by that error. I do not hate Jack Hyles nor even Jack Schaap, nor do I/did I wish to see either dead particularly so much that I would be willing to kill them. In fact I answered a call to full-time ministry after a sermon BY Jack Hyles. AND, I am in no way jealous of the ministry of FBCHI or any other church. After 11 years in the saddle, I am content that I am exactly where the Lord wants me to be, and I desire no other man's ministry. Thus, I am neither a Saul nor an Absalom.

#325848 Way Of Life - Ignoring The Sin Of First Baptist Of Hammond

Posted by Ukulelemike on 19 April 2013 - 07:37 AM

Sometimes I wonder if David Cloud and those like him who search diligently for reasons to throw spears have ever read A TALE OF THREE KINGS. 


It's an excellent book.

If all you see in what David Cloud does, and others like him, is throwing spears, you don't get it at all.

I looked it up as well, and it sounds like a book that men like Hyles and Shaap would be pleased with, as it seems to teach, by fictionalizing the Bible, (never a good idea), that one must never 'touch the Lord's anointed', as Hyles taught, by the way, never question Christian authorites, even if they are wrong and clearly teaching that which is wrong.


The problem with such an idea, is that, interestingly, if you look at it another way, David really had every right, both legally AND spiritually, to remove Saul from the throne. God had already rejected Saul from being king, and had already anointed David as the new king; it would not have been wrong in the least for him to kill or arrest Saul, and it probably would have been better for the people of Israel overall, if he had. Whenever Israel or Judah had a wicked king, the people often followed them in their wickedness, and were eventually punished for it. Just because a ruler is put in place, does not mean we follow them into sin and wickedness, nor do we accept a ruler who has been clearly removed by God as ruler.

#325792 New Rugged Crosses.......

Posted by Ukulelemike on 18 April 2013 - 07:45 AM

Oh boy, here I go again!


Okay, honestly, I am all for free enterprise and free markets and capitalism, but I am not sure that I could do something that would support a false church, founded on a faulty foundation of a set of false miracles, even performed in an unbiblical manner, and would cause others to see it more as a true church. Sure, business is business, but I doubt Paul would have been making tents for the local temple of Diana, because it was just business.


On the official statement of faith of the AOG USA churches, it states:

            "8. The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit

The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance."


The Assemblies of God exists expressly to give continuing emphasis to this reason for being in the New Testament apostolic pattern by teaching and encouraging believers to be baptized in the Holy Spirit. This experience:

Enables them to evangelize in the power of the Spirit with accompanying supernatural signs.


12. Divine Healing

Divine healing is an integral part of the gospel. Deliverance from sickness is provided for in the atonement, and is the privilege of all believers.



So, while many of their stands may look good, these, specifically, bring them to an unbiblical position as a church. I also know that many of their practices, their music, and their tendency to have almost a martiarchial leadership, makes them unscriptural. 


So my question is, is it right for a Christian to support them in such a way as to help advertise to the world in this manner that they are a scriptural body?

#325737 Way Of Life - Ignoring The Sin Of First Baptist Of Hammond

Posted by Ukulelemike on 17 April 2013 - 07:27 AM

Before this thread is locked out, I would like to clarify something and perhaps answer some false statements made on this particular subject.


The Book of 1 John, in chapters four and five, tells us how to tell a cult from the real thing.  These are to separate truth from error:


1Jo 4:2  Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

1Jo 4:6  We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

1Jo 4:7  Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

1Jo 4:15  Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

1Jo 4:13  Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

1Jo 4:15  Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.


1Jo 5:3  For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

1Jo 5:10  He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.


1Jo 5:12  He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.


There are more verses than these, of course, but this should be efficient enough.  To accuse a ministry of being a "cult" one must consider that they are blaspheming the work of the Lord if they have met the criteria.


Our bus ministry ran five buses all over town, and had many kids saved and baptized, and serving the Lord, and yet some bus parents called us a cult!  I can understand them saying that when they don't have understanding, but Christians?  That's another thing.

The sad thing about this post, is that it is the same argument I often hear from CCM worshipers, as well as so many others who follow error, is :if you say I am wrong, you are saying I am not a Christian". No one is accusing the Hyles church of being a cult, nor that the Spirit in Hyles is Satan. Yes, they have done well, but yes, they have also done harm. If they were a cult, we wouldn't be calling them to accountability or repentance, because we would understand they are saved, and would deal with them as such. I think this is why there is so much out there, and in here, about it-we see brethren in error, being taught error, and we desire to see them doing well. Its not hatred.

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500