Jump to content


Member Since 17 Oct 2012
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 10:08 PM

#332500 Spiritual Revival - How Can We Have It?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 07 June 2013 - 07:31 AM

My thoughts on revival.


  As a pastor who has tried the 'revival meeting' thing, and heard great preaching and no results, I have come to realize that a true 'revival' is not a meeting, not necessarily a group, or even a church thing, bt an indiidual thing, and if continued, CAN spread further.


Every revival has to start with a single man or woman, someone who, in their own life, has come to understand the need of a better relationship with God, a need to purge the old sins which so easily beset. That person, coming in fervent, often prayer can bring about revival in that person, a reviving of the spirit to be made more lively to God.


When that person becomes revived, I believe it will place in their hearts a greater desire to serve God, but it must also, if there is to be revival of others, put upon them a heart for the brethren to be similarly revived-perhaps they will pray for one person, or many, perhaps invite one to pray with them with the same mind.


Basically, there can be NO revival, not on a small or large scale, unless the desire is in the heart to BE revived, meaning they must see clearly the need, and accept it, and prayer is a great beginning-that one person, or two people, praying fervently for themselves and others, can be the seed for revival to spread. A church can't be revived unless they have a pastor who is revived, or is seeking revival for himself and his flock and is prayiing for them.


I have heard that one of the 'great awakenings' began with one man praying, then others joining him, until entire churches through an area were praying at the same time with the same mind-in one accord.


Anyways, I ramble, because I just got up, but here is my point: one man, one woman, being revived, can plant the seed for a larger revival, or may just be himself revived. It must be based on the individual and their heart.

#331589 Preaching Schedules

Posted by Ukulelemike on 03 June 2013 - 01:39 PM

Allow me to post my preaching schedule for you:


I will be preaching at Bible Baptist church in Herlong, CA every Sunday morning at 11:00AM and 6:00 PM. As well as leading Bible Study and prayer Thursdays at 7pm. Don't Miss it!

#331570 Israel Today

Posted by Ukulelemike on 03 June 2013 - 11:23 AM

I am still not seeing the prophecies of Zechariah 14 anywhere in history. Especially since this seems to nicely correlate with the prophecy of Revelation 19's return of Christ. The army of Rome isn't the armies of the nations. Christ hasn't returned physically and destroyed the nations, the Mount of Olives hasn't split in half, and so far, the nations of the world are not going to Jerusalem yearly to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. Jesus isn't reigning from Jerusalem, nor has He in the past.


I'm just not seeing where these things have occurred. Unless all these things are spiritualized somehow, that something is not what the Bible says it is, then it can't have happened.


MInd you, I believe that certain prophetic events did happen in 70AD, just not all of them.

#331446 Bathing Baby Moses

Posted by Ukulelemike on 02 June 2013 - 06:53 PM


#331415 Welcome Our New Moderators

Posted by Ukulelemike on 02 June 2013 - 03:38 PM

Nice picture Ukelele, you even look like someone I used to know!

With a name like Irishman, might it be one of the wee folk? They're green, too! Begorah!

#331378 New Argument Against Calvinism

Posted by Ukulelemike on 02 June 2013 - 12:24 AM

Let's try something different for a moment: Let's look at our agreements on the issue, and see where we go from there.


As I understand, we agree that:


1: Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. So, we must be born again.


2: God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to eternal life. Let's, just for the moment, set aside whether this is ALL or all elect. Let's just go with the verse.


3: Jesus has promised "I will never leave thee nor forsake thee if we are are His, He will never leave us, nor forsake us-if saved, we can be secure in that salvation


  Now, there are diffeent ways we may understand these verses, between Reformed, Non-Reformed, (we'll leave Calvin and Arminus out of it for the moment), as well as others. Some believe only certain are destined to salvation, others that anyone according to ther decision; some believe we can sin and lose slavation or turn away, and others that we can't ever lose it once we have it, bu we all believe that Jesus has prmised never to leave us or forsake us.  we ALL believe, essentially, these three things, in one form or another.



So, how about this: Does it matter between Reformed/Non-reformed? Seriously? We know that to be saved, whether because the Lord has elected/pre-destined salvation, or we choose, we must all agree that the path is the same: Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. We know we must call, we know we must repent, we know we must admit and seek forgiveness-so does it matter if the Lord MAKES us do it, or we choose to do it, the bottom line is, we MUST do it! If we are to see the kingdom of God, we MUST be born again, born of the flesh and the Spirit.


Does it matter if the Lord predestines, or not, if we ALL believe that the scripture makes us accountable to be witnesses of Jesus and His gospel of salvation? We are told to go, so we go, and whatever the mechanism that brings the soul to salvation, does it matter, so long as we are obedient? We do what we are called to do and let the Lord bring the results.


Does it matter if we can sin and lose salvation, or walk away? After all if we are HIS then we should be seeking to live a life according to His ways, trusting in Him to take care of our salvation. Not that we go about hoping to maintain our salvation, but if we LIVE in a way that we seek to be honoring and obedient to our Saviour, it should really not matter.


I agree this last point stands on shaky ground-I don't intend it to be solid doctrine, but to make a point. IF we live in obedience to God's word as best as we can, seeking His strength, His will, His guidance, through prayer, through the word, through obedience, saved by His grace through faith, why should we spend our time making and arguing the tiny specifics? Obviously we'll never come to an agreement-presonally I find both sides of the argument flawed and incomplete, but both having merit-the problem being, they are men's placing the immortal, omnipotent, eternal things of God into a nice, neat little packet, and I really don't think we can do it.


Spurgeon said, (this is not a quote, but the best I remember), essentially that the Bible clearly teaches the sovereignty of God, as well as the accountability of man-things which on this side of Heaven may always seem to be two separate roads, yet which both must join as one at the throne of God in Heaven.  Nowhere does the Bible say we'll have perfect understading of His ways and thoughts-rather, that we will NOT, that it isn't possible, for His thoughts and ways are above our thoughts and ways, as high as the heavens are above the earth. 


   So why not just obey the things we know, and leave the rest in God's more-than-capable hands to handle the details?

#331116 Bullies

Posted by Ukulelemike on 31 May 2013 - 02:24 PM

By the way, I believe it is fine to protect life and family and property from animals-I shoot crows, and slaughter goats and rabbits and chickens for food.


As well, I am not opposed to the military-they have a biblically-authorized position, and the governor doesn't bear the sword in vain. But I am more and more certain anymore that Christians have no place in the military, especially when we have a government that burns Bibles, opposes 'sectarian' prayers, even by chaplains, who I think were put in place for just that reason, which is why there are many religions and denominations represented, and holds openly to so many unbiblical, wicked stands.


I do work for the government currently-primarily because there are no other jobs, literally, in my area-there is a base and a federal prison-that's it. But I am not yoked with them as I would be on active duty-I can walk away anytime I choose, but one cannot when currently in the military. And since the Bible says not to be unequally yoked believers with unbelievers, I believe its in direct opposition to scripture to join with them.

#331115 New Argument Against Calvinism

Posted by Ukulelemike on 31 May 2013 - 02:15 PM

You say "novel", I say "blatantly dishonest". Like the Catholics who come to Christian websites to argue against Christianity, those here who are arguing  against Reformed theology must use straw men and outright false claims in order to paint in it the most unflattering and diabolical light possible, because they know that if they were honest about what Reformed theology is and is not, their Finney-ism wouldn't stand a chance.

I repeat my former offer: please show in my posts, as well as James', where we were blatantly dishonest" in what we said. If I am in error, that's one thing, and if proven in error, I am happy to admit to it and publically so. Blatant dishonety is another thing entirely-where have we lied, willingly and knowingly? Give my examples of the straw men.


I ahve replayed all of your posts, showing your unwillingness to actually answer anything with biblical evidence. You compare us to your board of preachers and teachers who question you about what you have taught for the past couple weeks-but I don't see what we are doing here as any different: we lay out scripture showing our point of view, what we believe to be truth, and refuting a reformed position-that is what I refute, not Auburn88-I don't know you from Adam, so how can I direct ad hominem attacks toward you or your character when I don't know them? I refute what I perceive to be an error in doctrine-that's all. And that is all anyone here has asked of you-one can't come into a board like this and just say, essentially, "Nuh-uh, you're wrong, cuz I say so!", which is whay you are doing, my friend. It may not be what you are intending to do, but it is what is coming across to everyone else. So again, I encourage you to give a biblically-based foundation for your position, or relegate yourself to an inactive observer.


I have held off saying this until now, because I DON'T want to appear unkind, but there comes a time one must say, "Put up, or shut up."

#331099 Bullies

Posted by Ukulelemike on 31 May 2013 - 10:32 AM

This is sure become a topic I have mulled over time and again in my own life: non-resistance, or self-defense.


I admit, after years, I still find no clear answer. I had a good friend who joined with Mennonites and went from being an accomplished boxer with fiery Italian blood, to non-resistant. Didn't last, but it brought the issue to the forefront for me.


Jesus is the Prince of Peace-should we not seek to be men of peace, as well?


We speak here of the comment by Jesus of buying swords, and take that to mean defend one's self, or even go to war, yet He said two swords were sufficient for the twleve of them-not exactly self-defense material. And how can we love them who hate us, and pray for them that despitefully use us, and kill them?


Can we find ONE example of the disciples actually going into defense or offense against another in scripture? In fact, Stephen laid his life down willingly, as did all the Apostles and many disciples. When persecution arose, they aren't seen fighting, but fleeing, and having fled, they again sought to spread the gospel where they were.


Through history, Christians have become willing martyrs, or fled to preserve life, rather than taking up arms against their persecutors, and the churches grew, watered by the blood of the martyrs. Sometimes even the persecuters came to Christ by their examples, and became the persecuted.


I dunno-we all must make these decisions for ourselves. We look at the history of our country, how Christians toook up arms for the freedoms we have here, even brother against brother in the (un)civil war, yet we have willingly once again lost most of them, and honestly, freedom of religion has been perhaps the biggest reason for the spread of so many false religions, apostasy, carnalism and laziness in Christianity and hatred of Chrst and truth. Am I against religious freedom? Absolutely not! I am just against how it has led to some of the worst Christian attitudes in history, and has led to a world-wide spread of this same worthless brand of ecumenical, prosperity, charismatic so-called Christianity.

#330598 Reformed Pastors And The Kjv

Posted by Ukulelemike on 28 May 2013 - 12:31 PM

Thanks for the insight, everyone. I tread carefully when listening to Voddie Baucham, because I was aware of his sort of Calvinistic leanings, plus his affiliation with the dominionist organization Vision Forum. I had no idea Albert N. Martin was a Calvinist, though. I wish it was easier to find good Bible preaching for download :( Any suggestions for pastors whose sermons I can download on SermonAudio?

Don't know about sermonaudio, but if you go to http://www.lighthous...edia/podcasts/  you can get some of Doug Fisher's preaching, as well as some of his guest preachers.

Mind you, its been a few years since I have been there, and haven't loaded any of his sermons for a while, but as far as I know, they are still sound and solid. And frre to download.

#330590 New Argument Against Calvinism

Posted by Ukulelemike on 28 May 2013 - 12:15 PM

You can mock me all you like, but if you can't express your disagreement respectfully, then you have no argument. So far, all I've seen is ad homs and straw men and blatant dishonesty about what we believe.

I am tempted to call 'troll' on you, sir. When one considers the biblical arguments we have given you, and your absolute lack of argument back, other than to play the vicitm and say we mock you, what else can we do?  If you WANT disrepect, keep up your attitude and I am sure you'll find it, since thus far, it is all you have given here..

#330237 Can You Explain This?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 25 May 2013 - 10:33 AM

Not everything we have learned is truly Biblical - we are taught by men who have a limited understanding. We learn as we read the Scriptures, & our own understanding develops.


When you read posts like mine you may not agree, but you will (hopefully) see the reasoning that leads to my position, as I do yours.


Is there ANYTHING in the teaching of Jesus & his Apostles that suggests that "the modern day nation of Israel has the right to the land of Palestine." Teach me.

Very true-too often the teachings of men cloud our views. Let's explore that, shall we?


You said in your reply to my post, "We need to be aware that words like "earth" & "world" have multiple meanings depending on context," and "Tribes" normally refers to the tribes of Israel"


 This is true. So, the context says, "All the tribes of the earth" Yes, often tribes refers to the tribes of Israel-roughly 60 times in the Bible it says "tribes of Israel". In this case, it says "tinbes of the earth". It seems to me that the bulk of the evidence says that if it means tribes of Israel, it normally SAYS tribes of Israel. Out of 112 ocurances in the Bible of the word 'tribes", all but three are clearly referencing Israel in the context-those other three are clearly referencing something else: Isaiah 19:13, referencing the tribes, or people of Egypt, and the other two, Hab 3:9 and Matt 24:30, with a clear context of the whole earth.


My point in this being, the context when speaking f the tribes of Israel are extremely clear that it is Israel-why now, in this place, use 'earth' to refer to Israel? And don't tell me that it is because, since He is speaking to Israel, they would automatically reference it to themselves and so should we, because virtually each time it is used otherwise, it is being spoken to Israel,    Because of this, I believe the cear refence MUST be found in the context of 'earth', and that being a view of the entire planet, all the people everywhere. The context is clearly not the dirt, nor the dry land, but the earth as a whole. The Bible is clear, and anything else assumed outside of the clear context MUST be a teaching of man clouding the issue.


As for the Lord coming in the clouds to take His people out, the Bible is also cleaqr that it should be taken literally. Rev 1:7; Rev 14:14; 1Thes 4:17, all speak of a literal occurance, and two speak clearly of a physical removal, a physical resurrection, where we will be taken and join the Lord in the cloud. An event which has not yet occurred. And the reference you gave me from 1Kings 8:10 is an example of a literal occurance.


You said, "We do read of earthquakes & famines, & false christs in Acts. But note, these were not signs of the end:"


Yes, and we still read of them But what we don't read about are wars, rumors of war and nations rising against nations. Al these things might have been occurring, but not such as to make one sit up and take notice. The Bible doesn't say they are not signs of the end, just that they are not the end, in and of themselves. thus, everytime we see a war in the Middle East, we shouldn't say, "Oh! This is it! Here comes Jesus!" Just because there are disasters, man-made or natural, doesn't mean its the end.  Which is, in fact, what you say-that the attack on Jerusalem and destruction of the temple were the end-yet Jesus said this was NOT the end when such things happened. No, in fact, we are told to beware of peace. "For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape." (1Thes 5:3). As far as I know fom history, the desuction of the temple did not occur because of a false peace: there WAS no peace.


On top of this, Titus ordered them NOT to destroy the temple, but to allow it to stand, most likely to beter maintain order after the defeat of Jerusalem. It was, however, the soldiers who, disobeying his orders, that destryed it in anger for the Jews' resistance. Titus also never stood in the temple delcaring himself to be God.


So, the events of AD70 could not be what Jesus is speaking of in the bulk of Matt 24, nor could the book of the Revelation be referring to the events around and of AD 70. Jesus DID declare the destruction of the temple, but the Antichrist, at the end, will have it rebuilt, and then stand in the holiest place and declare himself god. Thisw hasn't hapened-not with Antiochus Epiphanies, not with Titus.



As for Israel-the modern-day nation. I absolutely believe it is their land, as the Lord declared it always would be, that when He returns, (physically) to earth, (the planet), He will return to the Mount of Olives, whch will split and all those being destroyed inside to escape through it, (Zech 14:3-6). This has not occurred, so we can't say it is past. This is declared to be when Jesus will reign from Jerusalem on the throne of David, and that all the earth will come and worship at Jerusalem, which has also not yet occurred. During that time, all the animals and all the pts will be holiness unto the Lord, not just those which were holy under the law, (Zech 14:17-21).


Since none of these things have yet occurred, as far as I know, then it must be referencing future events-thus Israel is seen in the land until the end, the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ as King of kings.


The current state of Israel can be understood in the prophecy of Ezekiel about the valley of dry bones, (Eze 37). Israel is currently at the point of the bones which have been covered in flesh, but are without life. Physically, Israel is present in the land, but spiritually, they are dead; at some point he Lord will return and they will mourn for Him when they se Him and know Him for who He is, and they will believe and repent, and then, the breath of life will be restored to them.

#330095 Ccm Being Used By Temple Baptist Church Powell, Tn (Pastor Clarence Sexton)

Posted by Ukulelemike on 24 May 2013 - 11:07 AM

I do not feel insulted because you said you believe I am ignorant on a subject.  I am appreciative when someone calls me ignorant and then explains why they believe this, as you did.  I don't particularly like it when it is a hit and run.


Anyway, I liked the music being sung by the church choir.  You talk of a "spirit" that goes with the music and that is the spirit of compromise.  If I only hear the music by the church choir and I feel it glorifies God and I get it for my choir, how has my attitude changed?  How have I compromised if my intentions are to Glorify God and I am ignorant as to the roots of a song or who wrote it?  If I am not looking to have it appeal to the people in order to draw them in, but rather Glorifying God, have I compromised?  Should I research the beginnings of all songs in church and the author and try to find out his/her beliefs before we sing it?  That might cause me to throw out all Fanny Crosby stuff. 

Therein lies the problem and the danger. You like the music-it was re-arranged to more comfortably suit the IFB atmosphere. Many people will never do so much as to investigate who wrote the music, who they are, what they believe-I agree. But the danger lies in the musicians in charge, who are knowingly digging into known CCM work to use, rather than the massive amounts of already-godly music that need no rearrangement to be suitable for use.


Lemme give an example.  I have a friend, a preacher, who is a very smart man. He is also a businessman, and seeks to work his business in a manner that pleases and glorifies God. In the church where he serves as an associate pastor, he ad an email ministry for Christian leadership. He wrote articles, recommended books, and the like, for resources Christian leaders and businesspeople could use.

  Now, this man had used a few book from a person, and having read them he was hapy with them and found them godly and helpful. I don't know how much he knew about this man's actual faith and beliefs.  So, when he wrote another book, this preacher quickly recommended it, having had such good response from the earlier ones. He even included a few free pages that could be downloaded for review, a teaser, if you will. So I downloaded it.  


  Right in the beginning, there was a quote. I don't remember the actual quote, but I DO remember who was quoted: Lao-Tzu. Heard of him? he was actually Laozi-and he was the founder of Taoism, or Tao Buddhism. First thing, a Buddhist quote. In a book recommended for Christians. Seeing a problem?


Fortunately, my wife, before she was saved, was heavinly into the New Age, and while I wasn't familiar with Lao-Tzu, she was, and it set off a warning with her. I contacted the preacher, and wanrned him about it. Praise God he is a humble man, he quicky rescinded the book, and gave a warning about its use. He later admitted he just hadn't researched THAT book, since the others were so good.


My point being, just because someone is edified by something and is ignorant of the dangers, doesn't remove the dangers-it just makes them, really, more dangerous and subtle. Most people never look into the dangers o CCM or its adaptation-instead they just slowly begin to slide into an inevitable worldliness. Danger is still danger, even if we don't recognize it. Especially today, as we are in such an information age.


As for Fanny Crosby, no one felt they had to alter her music to use it in church-it was good from the day it was first played and sung; the very fact they feel the need to alter it for use should set off a warning bell. Its like taking all the dirty stuff out of a porn movie, because it has an otherwise nice storyline. Why alter the junk, when there are so many other good things out there without having to alter it?

#330081 Texas Judge: Morality Clause Prohibits Lesbians From Cohabitating

Posted by Ukulelemike on 24 May 2013 - 10:39 AM

My first wife left me, and like you, I thought, how important it was for them to have a good, constant relationship with their mother. So, mom has gotten into multiple partners, bondage, and other weird things, as well as a touch of recreational bisexuality.


So, she has pictures of both my daughters nude on her living room wall, while pregnant. HUGE pictures, not little 5x7's. One is a meth addict and has left her husband and kids, and spent time as a lesbian. The other has had one child out of wedlock, dumped that guy, (actually a good idea), and is now living with another guy for over a year, but 'isn't ready for marriage'. Both are tattooed and the addict is pierced, as well. All over. Now she's coming close-by to start her court-mandated rehab.


While they were lving with their mother, I was attending Bible institute, and preparing to become a pastor. I wonder if things might have been different had their primary influence been of my life, rather than their mother's?


With this, please pray for my daughter, Ariel, as she begins soon rehab. Pray I can have some positive influence on her. She has admnitted she doesn't want to quit-which in a way is good, that she is being honest about that-I have no delusions about her attitude, at least, and it will help me as I pray for her.

#330071 My Only Personal Experience With David Cloud

Posted by Ukulelemike on 24 May 2013 - 10:03 AM

Ah,, David Cloud. 


   Now, I like David Cloud-have found him a useful resource. He's a busy guy, a writer, as well as an active missionary in Nepal, not an easy place to work. he is knowledgeable and well-read. But he's still a man, thus, flawed and subject to errors. And perhaps one of his errors is that he chooses, generally, not to look at things others bring forth as a legitimate, honest and respectful disagreement.


I do disagree with Mr. Cloud in a few areas-what they are isn't important. But I will admit that, even when one agrees with him in areas, he doesn't seem willing to look at what is being brought forth. Example:

    When I was working on my Master's thesis, I did it on the head covering. In my work, I did a lot of extra-biblical research, because, let's face it: there's really not a lot the Bible says on the subject. A major aspect of my paper was in refutation to many of the typical arguments FOR a woman to wear a head covering; in fact, I was using a Mennonite tract about the covering as a basis. Part of the research was online historical things-statues of the time, art, paintings in the catacombs, etc, as well as what history says women were doing with their hair at the time of the writing of 1Corinthians.


  I found a lot of very interesting information, some that really opened some bible passages to me as I understood them from a historical perspective, and wanted to share it with David Cloud, but he wasn't interested-he knew what he believed and that was enough for him. Granted, its not a huge subject, but I found a lot of things on it that applied, and I wanted to share, but he wasn't interested.


Now, of course, for a man as busy as Cloud is, he can hardly have time to write and answer everyone who sends him things, or answer every argument put to him. And I suspect he gets a LOT of them, and most of them are against him. I daresay he gets tired of all the critics, be they kind or unkind. Would it be good for him to, perhaps screen his letters and try to find the legitimate arguments, such as the subject of the OP, and answer them? Sure. But not doing what he does, I find it difficult to get all against him, especially to disregard all the good information he provides, because I dsagree with him. Maybe he got some bad information? I am sure there are many who would love to provide him with incorrect 'insider' information, just to make him look bad. But as a pastor, I would feel pretty bad if someone disagreed with something I taught, and, because I didn't have the time to discuss it with him, he rejected ALL I did and left. I pastor a small church and fortunately have time to discuss thing with people-but I would not expect that the pastor of a church with 500 or more people could do the same.


So, to bring this down, I guess my point is-don't toss the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. But, also, never assume anyone, even David Cloud, is always right. I would hope he would not want that. Be willing to do your own study, your own research on everything. I have been dinged when I took something another good preacher said as truth, only to find out they were wrong, and now, I was wrong, too, and had to amend it. And if David Cloud or any writer isn't willing to hear a godly rebuke, so be it-we have done the job we can, put out the information we could and the job is done.  

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500