Jaysun's Journal

Independent Baptist

Jesus Wore A Hood?


Image

Yes, the Trayvon Martin thing is a tragedy.

This is just a response to media like

Image

&

Image

This is just wrong.

Consequently, where do “they” get that Jesus wore a hood anyway?

Maybe He did, maybe He didn’t.

But I’m pretty sure He never got suspended for Marijuana.

ijs

March 30, 2012 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Praying For A New Tongue?


Praying For A New Tongue?

Most Folks Can’t Handle The One They’ve Got!

When a prophet named Balaam was headed somewhere the Lord didn’t want him to go God sent an angel to block his way.  The beast on which Balaam rode was apparently more sensitive to spiritual things than he was.  Because the animal kept turning out of the way to avoid the angel, Balaam became frustrated and started beating her.

And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?” (Num 22:28)

Notice first of all (1) something is speaking that shouldn’t be.  2Peter 2:16 says this “dumb (mute) ass” was speaking “with a man’s voice.”  This is not the 1st time you find an animal speaking in the Bible (the serpent spoke to Eve in the Garden) but this is interesting.  Notice also, Balaam’s ass was a ‘she’.  In the average charismatic church, I’d say, women do 90% of the tongues speaking.  Paul was dealing expressly with the gift of tongues when the Holy Ghost moved him to write:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (1Co 14:34-35)

Paul knew it was the will of God for the “women to keep silence in the churches” when it came to the matter of tongues.   But Paul was also a realist.   He knew that people do not like being told what they can and can’t do.  Paul knew that later on liberal scholars would rise up out of the crevices of Hell and downplay what he had just written.  Accordingly, some argue that the prohibition against women speaking in tongues here in 1Corinthians 14 and the qualifications of a pastor in 1Timothy 3 are all just Paul’s “opinion.” Paul anticipated all of this and wrote verse 37 for everyone who tries to justify their charismatic grandma or one of their friends who happens to be a woman preacher. In an almost sarcastic manner, he says:

If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” (1Co 14:37) jimmy put the "swag" in swaggart

Paul knew many folks don’t care what the Bible says.  So he writes in verse 38: “But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” (1Co 14:38)

Secondly, (2) this unnatural behaviour didn’t appear strange to Balaam.  Any sane person would have found this event beyond bizarre.  But remember, Balaam is not right with God.  People who are out of fellowship with the Lord are frequently and strangely comfortable in unusual circumstances.  For instance, when Jonah was running from God, the Lord sent a storm that nearly destroyed the ship he was in. The heathen sailors were calling on every god they could think of!  (It’s just natural to pray when you’re going thru a storm.)  “…But Jonah was gone down into the sides of the ship; and he lay, and was fast asleep.” (Jon 1:5)  In his backslid condition Jonah seemed immune to his problematic surroundings.  If you have the slightest knowledge of the Bible you should know the Holy Ghost won’t make you act like a complete fool.  If you see nothing wrong with men and women foaming at the mouth and babbling on like idiots, then there’s something wrong with you (you’re spiritually retarded).

The Mosaic Law demanded that God’s people (the Jews) abstain from unclean meats. Many of the Jews continued to observe these dietary laws even after they were converted.  They did this more out of habit than necessity.  But, in their defense, there was no verse in the Old Testament that said, “After you become a Christian you can eat whatever you want.”  So in their minds, certain things like pork were still taboo.  When Gentiles started getting saved, because of their eating habits, many of the believing Jews were uncertain whether or not they should fellowship with them.  (It was hard for them to believe God would bless someone who ate bacon.)  On one occasion, because of this mindset, God revealed to the Jewish companions of Peter that He did indeed pour out His spirit upon Jew and Gentile alike.

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,” (Ac 10:44-46)

Again the Bible says they spoke with “tongues” (plural) and not with an “unknown tongue” (singular). Tongues were necessary since, as 1Cor 1:22 says, “The Jews require a sign.”  Until the New Testament scriptures were complete, the sign gifts were necessary for unbelieving Jews.  Mark 16:20 indicates the Apostles had been commissioned to confirm (authenticate, backup, or validate) the Gospel with signs.  The purpose of tongues was to confirm that God had indeed stretched out His saving arm to the Gentiles.

The word ‘tongue’ in Scripture refers to either: a language or an actual part of the body known as the tongue.  As far as the Bible is concerned, the gift of tongues was the supernatural ability to speak in a language not previously learned. For instance if I was suddenly endowed by God with the ability to speak and understand Japanese, that would be similar to the gift on Pentecost.  1Corinthians 14 gives instruction concerning the utilization of this gift.   Many of these rules are violated and completely disregarded in charismatic circles.  However, the utter confusion, which “they” refer to as ‘speaking in tongues,’ is NOT that gift described in the Bible.  Tongues, such as in Acts 2 and 10, were known languages and not ecstatic, unintelligible, gibberish.

Some say that “speaking in tongues” is evidence of being filled with the Holy Ghost.  Some go even further, saying that you’re not even saved if you don’t speak in tongues.  I strongly disagree.  Take Jesus for example.  Can you think of anyone more sanctified and Holy than the Lord Jesus Christ?  None would ever accuse Him of not being Spirit filled.  Yet in my Bible, I never find a single instance where Jesus ever spoke in tongues.  If “tongues” is the evidence of having the “baptism of the Holy Ghost“, why did the Lord not leave us that example in His life as He did with water baptism and communion? Moving on…

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.” (1Cor 4:2)

The word “spirit in this verse is lowercase.  It refers to our spirit and not God’s Holy Spirit. Notice, the word “unknown’ here is italicized, and the word ‘tongue’ is singular. ‘Unknown tongue’ refers to any language not understood by others.  We are told not to forbid people to speak with ‘tongues’ (plural) in 1Cor 14:39. However, the Bible does NOT say “Forbid not to speak in the unknown tongue” (singular) this is Bible Doctrine, not merely my opinion.

And as Forest Gump once said, “That’s all I got to say about that.”

January 11, 2011 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

More Compromising: Billy Graham, God, & George Bush


Reading George Bush’s new book Decision Points, I was shocked to read Billy Graham’s answer to Bush Sr.’s question.  He basically asked, “Is it essential to be born again?” You’ll have to read this for yourself…Its unbelievable!  

In the summer of 1985, we took our annual trip to Maine. Mother and Dad had invited the great evangelical preacher Billy Graham. Dad had asked him to answer some questions from the family after dinner.  That was typical of Dad, always willing to share.

It  would  have  sent  a  signal  of importance  to  have  had  Billy  to  himself,  but  that  is  not George H.W. Bush. He is a generous man, devoid of a big ego.  So  there  we  sat,  about  thirty  of  us—Laura,  my grandmother,  brothers  and  sister,  first  and  second  cousins —in  the  large  room  at  the  end  of  the  house  on Walker’s Point.

The first question was from Dad.  He said, “Billy, some people say you have to have a born-again experience to go to heaven.  Mother [my grandmother] here is the most religious, kind person I know, yet she has had no born-again experience. Will she go to heaven?

Wow, pretty profound question from the old man.

We all looked at Billy.  In his quiet, strong voice, he replied, “George, some of us require a born-again experience to understand God, and some of us are born Christians.  It sounds as if your mom was just born a Christian.” (Pgs. 48-49 of the Ebook)

Hopefully, Bush misremembers Graham’s exact words.  Otherwise, this is compromise of the nth degree!

Jesus said, “…Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) It’s imperative.  It’s essential.  There’s no getting around it.  “…Ye MUST be born again.” (John 3:7)

November 25, 2010 Posted by | politics, Religion | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment