ajchurney

Is there an actual difference?  A man of God once told me there was.  I still don't see it, and he didn't explain it at all.

 

I respect this man, but has he got it wrong (which humans are prone to do)?

Hey Zion!

I am fairly certain that what the Godly man meant was that worship is a focus, attitude, and lifestyle based upon the idea that God is WORTHY. To worship something is to place great value upon it, so much so that it determines your thoughts, words, and deeds. Those who worship God must worship Him in Spirit and in truth. I believe that scripture is the physical representation of absolute truth on earth. Spirit is, of course, the Holy Spirit, who dwells inside the true believer. Holy Spirit works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure. Holy Spirit is the teacher and interpreter of the scripture to us. Holy Spirit sanctifies and purifies our thoughts, will, and emotions. He does this as we offer ourselves to God as a living sacrifice. Considering our Lord to be so wonderful and so great in our heart that we surrender all to him as an ongoing dedication is our reasonable service and act of worship to Him. Music is not the worship, but merely a tool, a gift God put in man which helps us express ourselves to Him and to each other the worship that comes from the inner man in dedication. 

All Christians worship God, as this is basically how you get saved, by offering your life to His service in faith and trust in who He is and what He has done for us. Not all Christians do well in continuing in the lifestyle of worship, which leads to maturity and a fruitful life in the Kingdom, which also results in greater heavenly reward, as well as a more blessed life here on earth (often with persecutions!).

Hope this helps and informs,

your brother Andy

The only people Jesus publicly rebuked were the religious hypocrites. He seems to have much more patience with prostitutes, traitors (tax collectors), rebels, and adulterers, and likely mouthy brats than he does for hypocritical pharisees. 

Daniel, I appreciate your zeal for reverencing God but the brothers and sister Willa rightly challenge you regarding the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the church age, as well as the Christians attitude regarding the sins of others. We are expected to lovingly discipline those inside the church, but what have we to do with judging those outside the church?? Our job is to witness Jesus Christ to them. Yes, we are to hate sinful behaviors, but to love the sinner himself and demonstrate the goodness and forebearance of God, which is what leads men to repentance. God does not rejoice in the death of the sinner, neither should we. Your "those punks got what was coming to them!" attitude really is a bit disturbing. You are happy when someone possibly goes to hell?!!? Think about it

There are a number of issues which I believe are down played in this whole debate.

The first is that influence of Roman rule and law. All the New Testament was written within the Roman Empire under Roman Rule and Law. This has influenced aspects of that. For example slavery. This is allowed in the OT, but it is also foundational for Roman Rule. Within the NT we no where see writing against slavery. Rather we see comments on how slave masters should treat their slaves. Today, we understand that slavery is against God's original intention for humanity and Christian teaching for today for slave masters would be to free these slaves!

Likewise the place of women in society was influenced both by the OT and Roman Law. In Roman Law women were under the authority of their husbands. There are debates amongst scholars to the extent of women leadership in Roman society, but it seems it wasn't great. So, like slavery, it is unsurprising that we see this reflected in NT teaching. Should this also, like slavery, be something that should be understood in light of God's original intention for humanity?

 

A second issue is Paul's missionary heart for the Jews. Although Paul was the missionary to the Gentiles, Paul's desire to see Jews saved was so great, he would have given up his own salvation for it (Rom 9:13). He wanted Jews saved, and this is reflected in his teaching. A gentile gathering was very different to a Jewish synagogue in Paul's day. In the synagogue, women sat on the opposite side to men, and they were no allowed to talk or teach during the service. Paul's desire to see this reflected in church services is perhaps part of his desire to see Jewish people reached. If they walked into a religious meeting which was out of control and had should complete disregard to the way they did things, they were unlikely to stick around and hear the message of Jesus. Should this then become the norm for people today?

Hashe, ultimately, the scriptures interpret the scriptures. It is highly speculative to inject ideas about Paul's motives, particularly when He appeals to scripture to support His point, and nothing of any cultural reference. Paul used Adam and Eve as his foundation, nothing else. You have to give this serious gravity before you go looking to things outside the scripture to interpret it, and that by speculation. I am not saying that historical and cultural references do not have some utility, but one must be careful when drastically altering a clear statement or negating it altogether, simply on an assumed cultural frame of reference that has now changed. If Paul had appealed in some way to any of the things you mention as a basis of his instruction, then we can give it credence, otherwise, we are close to revisionism. I am also not saying that there are not places where Paul makes these types of "advice" but this is not one of them. The entire NT never presents a female Elder, and this is consistent with Paul's rhetoric. 

Blessings, Andy

I'm sorry Andy I've reread all my post and did not see the personal on my part! Love, Steven

It's ok, Steven! it just seemed a little heated in general, as though Ovedya was getting frustrated with the exchange, but I meant no accusation! Your posts are always good and  little heat is perhaps good if it boils truth to the surface and warms passion for the Word of God! Maybe I should have refrained from the gentle exhortation!?!

Huge Blessings, Andy

PS- could you tell me what you think about my thoughts on Adam originally having a glorified body before the fall? I appreciate your insight, Brother

Lordship salvation is NOT the belief that you have to stop sinning as a pre-condition for salvation.  Repentance from sin is part of accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior.   When we accept Jesus, we are accepting Him as Savior AND Lord.   The Bible says that God is calling on all people to repent.  Repentance is our response to the Gospel.  The first thing we should do is repent of our sin, turn from our sin and turn to Jesus.

 

Lordship salvation is about there being a changed life when we are saved.  If a person claims to be a Christian but doesn't bear the fruit of repentance, if there isn't a change, and a sincere desire to serve the Lord, such a person needs to reexamine the authenticity of their profession of faith.

 

No one has to be perfect and submitted to God in every area of their life in order to get saved, but there should be a daily desire to continue surrendering to Jesus as Lord.  If one rejects Jesus as Lord, there is a strong likelihood, they never got saved.   Jesus Saviorship and Lordship are a "package deal" so to speak.  You can't receive Him as Savior and reject Him as Lord.

I agree with Shiloh. My understanding is that Lordship Salvation is a response to cheap grace theology, also known as easy-believism. I did not think that simple Lordship salvational teaching includes works-based salvation or sanctification. If it does, I do not believe in that aspect. What I do believe is that Jesus is not your savior if He is not your Lord. The idea here is that Jesus is most certainly the Master, Lord, King, and God over every man. One must recognize this in order to understand who it is that died for you and why his blood is worth enough to pay for the sins of all mankind! It is not enough to just believe in propositional truths of the historic earthly life and death and resurrection of Jesus. We must place our trust (faith) in Him and Him alone as the way, truth and life. His Lordship over all creation and over each of us as individuals is not a negotiable point. Every knee must bow and every tongue confess that.......JESUS IS LORD!!! Bowing the knee is humbly submitting to your Boss, your Master, your King, your Lord.

The beauty of the New Covenant is that Jesus will put the Spirit inside of he who submits to Him, in order to both inform and empower that person. The law was good, but it lacked this ability to give essential grace, and Jesus made a way for us to live and walk pleasing to him by the Spirit! God now works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure. This is empowering grace! The hook is that this grace is available only through submitting to Him, not by merely admitting that Jesus is real (the demons do that...and shudder at the thought!)

If there are forms of Lordship salvation teaching that go beyond this and preach a series of works in order to be saved, I would oppose that. Recognizing Jesus as the Lord of the universe and bowing your knee (surrendering to Him) is NOT a "work"!!! Neither is repenting of your filthy sinfulness, or asking Christ to forgive you. These are responses of the conscience and heart which Jesus repeatedly commanded people to have towards Him, not works. If we call these "works", we are getting into hyper-calvinism and error.

He is Lord and I am not!!

Andy

Physical death is merely the design of creation.  God never intended for man to be immortal at any time, aside from his having partaken of the tree of life.  All natural life was designed to pass through birth, life, death, and resurrection. It is this process which testifies of God's power, His nature, His immutability. Hence, it is the  reason for Romans 1:20; God's very nature is indelibly written in the cycle of life, the cycle of the environment, the cycle of the earth - all of which testify of the Lord Jesus and redemption itself. God became a man, God lived a perfect human life, God died a perfect guiltless and redemptive death, God resurrected, and God ascended once more to produce a multiplication of Himself in life and nature. This is the pattern of all living things - birth, life, death, resurrection, procreation. Therefore, it is an error to presume that God created Adam to live forever apart from His own life. God created Adam in the same pattern as all of His other creation, only with the exception that man had the right to the Tree of Life, which would have given Adam eternal life, the life of God Himself, and thereby live forever (Gen. 63:22).

 

 

I find it interesting the traditional interpretation of that old Christian chestnut, John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son, that whoever believes into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."  The word "everlasting" has misled believers for centuries. Actually the most accurate and proper translation is "eternal."  the word "eternal imparts a much deeper meaning. Rather than saying "You will live forever," it says "you will have the eternal life, the nature of God Himself."  Living forever may have been an important aspiration for some, even many, who have read this verse, but knowing that we will have another life, another nature, another source by which we can live for eternity, is so much more valuable, so much deeper, so accurate to God's original intention in Genesis.  

 

I think it offends some believers when I tell them, "You are not going to live forever." Because this seems to defy what they believe. However, when I tell them that their eternal life in Christ Jesus simply means that they have the very life of God Himself; and that that life will result in an eternal boundless city, filled with the expression of the Triune God, they come around pretty quickly.

You and Steven are really delving deep into this, which is great. You said, "Therefore, it is an error to presume that God created Adam to live forever apart from His own life. God created Adam in the same pattern as all of His other creation, only with the exception that man had the right to the Tree of Life, which would have given Adam eternal life, the life of God Himself, and thereby live forever (Gen. 63:22)."

 Do you think it is impossible that God created Adam with what we would call a glorified body? When Jesus conquered death and rose from the dead, He then was housed in one of these. If Adam had not yet experienced spiritual death, which is what Jesus conquered, then why is it impossible that the first Adam before the fall would have what the second Adam had after the resurrection? Even if God created the rest of the living things in the world with certain patterns, which no one can be entirely sure of their forms pre-fall, surely it is not impossible that God created His highest order of being with a glorified body. Mankind was made just a little lower than Elohim (I am sure you know the scrip!), and He was made the steward of the entire Earth and had dominion over everything. How could Adam even come close to fulfilling God's original intent for him in a basically perfect version of the body we have, subject to death and all natural forces? Everything Adam was came from God and was sustained by God regardless. Angels apparently are immortal, do not age or die. Why is it error or incredible if man was in an immortal, glorified state prior to the fall. I am not saying that this is absolute, unassailable truth, but you seem to present man as originally subject to normal physical death as unassailable truth, which I believe overstates the case. However, you are very astute in your use of scripture,  and obviously intelligent and a student of the word, which I love!! I also agree with your earlier assessment of "eternal life" being much more than living forever...great stuff! I really want to read your response

As far as the tree of life necessitating a body that can die, It is also in heaven, where there is no death, and everyone has a glorified body, so I am not sure of your reasoning there, but look forward to your explanation!

Blessings, Andy

P.S.-you and Steven need to not get personal......just sayin'!  Keep it in love!

Thanks Joe! Your style is unique and exhorts us all!!

 

No smokers do not have a demon.Anymore than someone who drinks coffee has a demon in them.I do not take too seriously what John Hagee has to say.

Yes, I think many, if not most, TV evangelists have inadvertently exalted themselves and have become their own stumbling block.  If true, they are sending mixed messages and falsehoods to both believers and non-believers which is not a good thing?  Take Joseph Prince, for example, whom I think is blessed with brilliance helping believers understand the differences from being under the Law (Old Testament) and in Christ (New Testament). Yet he also preaches that water baptism means that all yours sins are forgiven; past, present and future which I believe may not be correct? Otherwise, a Christian could commit every sin including murder in the "future" but those sins are forgiven? I don't think so? Bottom line, 'TV evangelism' has perhaps gone way over the top and is out of control?

 

Smoking is likely an unwise and unhealthy practice, but the real sin in anything like this is in overindulgence and habitual practice. Addiction is certainly not a good thing, and it would not be surprising if there were some demonic influence in some of the addiction problems people have. It seems very easy, however, for some preachers to find demons in nearly everything! Demons are real and a serious subject, and the worst thing about such statements is that it causes people to either fear what is not there, or to ridicule Christians as a whole because of the lack of wisdom of a few. 

 

What do Calvinists (at least five-point Calvinists) think of the verse below, which clearly says that Jesus has saved all men:

1 Timothy 4:10

King James Version (KJV)

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

 

Sorry, I am not a Calvinist, but I wish to simply point out that the verse you quoted does NOT say that  Jesus "has saved" all men. It says that He is "the Savior of all men." These are not the same thing. Jesus is the Savior in the sense that He is the only one who ever paid the price of atonement as a substitutionary sacrifice. Jesus is the Savior of all men because He is the only one ABLE to save anyone. There is no other to whom a man can turn in order to receive salvation, therefore He is certainly the Savior. The end of the verse emphasizes that He is "specially", or in particular of those who believe. This obviously implies that those who do not believe are not in this class or particularity. 

May I add that one cannot proof text a doctrine such as soteriology (how one is saved). What it means that Christ is Savior of all men is borne out by many passages of scripture, and not boiled down to one or two verses. Scripture always interprets scripture, and the meaning of any one particular verse is first understood by its immediate context (the surrounding verses, likely at least the whole chapter it is in, as well as how it fits with the entire letter or book, as well as how it is understood with every other verse and passage on the same subject, as well as underlying foundational truths. 

I do know that Calvinists are not universalists, so would not interpret your verse as meaning that all men are personally saved just because Christ has made the way for them to potentially be saved. Calvinists believe that God chooses whom to save and the saved person has basically nothing to do with the process because it is all God's work. I heartily disagree, as freewill is what makes man who he is and not an angel or a robotic slave. God chooses, predestines, and foreordains because He is eternal by nature. God's eternality puts him outside of time, above it and the maker and ruler over it. God is present at all places and times at the same time. Therefore, He knows all things past present and future because He is literally already there. God chooses whom to save because He is there in the moment of their surrender to Him already, no matter when that is going to be. God simply knows who belongs to Him in His eternal omniscience.

This being said, God does not violate our freewill. We still live in time, and we still have to repent and surrender to Him in order to be saved. God does not make this happen, He allows us to choose or not choose. He already knows ahead of time, but we do NOT!

As far as the total depravity of man, I believe that all men are sinners by nature, having a sinful tendency from conception, but also retaining a God-given conscience which gives them an ability to recognize his own problem with sin, and decide what to do about it. If depravity were as Calvinists describe, then not one person could ever do anything of any moral fortitude or character. We would be like demons, only killing, stealing, and destroying. God gives everyone conscience or freewill is not real at all but entirely contrived and humans are merely highly intelligent beasts and devils who God randomly changes into righteous people. LUDICROUS!

Willa, 

I did not mean to be confusing. In saying there was too much opinion coming in, I was not trying to zero in on your post, but to point out something I was reading in many other posts.Where too much opinion is coming in is in the sense of lessening the importance of baptism by continuously trying to find exceptions to doing it. Exceptions may go to help show that it is not essential for regeneration, but it it no way changes the facts that Eben stated in his post. Water baptism is not integral to salvation, but a result of it, a clear step of obedience. It is clearly a COMMAND of Christ himself, then COMMANDED by Peter in Acts, then practiced consistently in Acts as a whole, and it is clearly supported in the letters, as well as explained in its symbolism and typology. It just doesn't get any stronger than this, as far as something being an expected Christian practice! Just because something is not integral to salvation does not mean it is not commanded by God as a part of the Faith! Communion, worship, covenant marriage, church fellowship, and many other things are part of the Christian faith and non-negotiable as far as practicing them (marriage in the sense of if you choose partnership, not that everyone must be married! I mean marriage as an institution). God is loving and just and there are always reasonable exceptions, when a person simply cannot comply. However,  it is not acceptable to be in stubborn rebellion, refusing to do it because in their own mind they do not "have to" just because it cannot be proven to be essential for salvation. I actually believe that you agree with me in principle, as your posts have shown you to honor the scriptures and reverence the Lord, I just want to clarify things a bit. To be succinct, I do not believe one needs a specific "leading" to obey something that is as clearly commanded and practiced as baptism. When someone who claims to have been born again of the Spirit of God refuses or questions baptism after reading the scriptures, it makes me wonder why in the world they would not, instead, greatly desire baptism! Anyone who is of the truth should be knocking people over to get to some water and get baptized, not timidly questioning if they "have to do it". Baptism is a "get to" not a "got to" do it thing!!! I appreciate your story illustrating this point. 

I suppose, as the father of many children, I have seen very many times that when a child starts digging for exceptions to a rule or principle, it usually indicates a heart that is not really submissive and obedient. Sometimes we must discuss exceptions for the sake of accuracy or completeness of understanding. But when we speak so much of it that exceptions are sounding more like the rule of thumb, or that we can do it or not according to our preference or our feeling about it when the subject at hand is the clear command of Jesus, it makes me uncomfortable. I think it quite dangerous to seek acceptable means to not obey Jesus and the scriptures.....that's my opinion.

Okay - this may seem a bit odd for me to say this now. I've been on Worthy for over a year, and I keep hearing people talk about the Holy Spirit - "the Holy Spirit told me this", "the Holy Spirit told me that", "the Holy Spirit guided me to..." and so on.

But why don't I have the Holy Spirit? I don't feel anything. What is it supposed to feel like?

 

I have absolute faith in God. I don't doubt his existence for one moment - there's too much proof around me for that. I pray and confess my sins and I think that he hears me, although to be honest, I don't think that he's answered one prayer yet, and if he has it seems to be just a coincidence.

As for this Holy Spirit stuff, well all I can say is, "what Holy Spirit?" I never felt anything enter me, or change me. If I get the Holy Spirit, how would I know? I've not experienced it, so how can I tell if I have it?

Unless of course, it's that warm, fuzzy peaceful feeling that I get sometimes after praying, and if it is, I'm worried. Because I used to get that same feeling before I was saved. I got it on any number of occasions when I felt comfortable and safe.

So, am I saved or not? I definitely believe in God, but I'm worried that he doesn't believe in me.

A good thing to do is read John 14 to 17. Read it a few times and pay close attention to all of the things Jesus says about Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit is the person of God, and has been sent in a special way to be the substitute for Jesus until He comes back bodily.

It is so important to remember that Holy Spirit (I will just say HS, ok?) is not an "it" or just some impersonal power that comes from God. He is God! 

Jesus said that it was BETTER for Him to go away so that the Spirit could come in His place. Why is this so? For one thing, Jesus could only be in one place at a time, since He lives in a body. HS does not have a body, so He can be with each one of us, all of us, at the same time. Also, since Jesus has a body, you would communicate with Him as ypu would any person, except that His words would be perfect! with HS, He is Spirit only, and actually comes to live INSIDE of every true believer. This is called the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and is mentioned very often in the New Testament. 

If you are not experiencing a relationship with HS, then you first need to seek the Lord and read His word, and ask Him in prayer point blank if you have received Him, and if you have received Him, learn more about Him from the scriptures and seek Him much more in your prayer life. Also seek out people who have a close walk with HS, and ask them what they do and how they have learned to hear Him better. Go get some books on HS, and on living intimately with God. There is an old classic book called "Practicing the presence of God"  by Brother Lawrence, dictated to another man by him centuries ago. Of course, no books can substitute for your own study of scripture, but good books bring good teaching and challenge us to be more and learn more. 

It is worth any amount of effort and time put in to get to know God more intimately through HS. He is the gift of God and the promise of the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. The truth is that Jesus did not die and rise from the dead only to forgive our sins, which is amazing enough. More than this, He dealt with our sin so that a place could be made inside our born again spirit for the Holy Spirit to come inside an live with us and be with us, inside us, all of the time! This was the goal of Jesus coming to earth and going back to heaven! Jesus paid a very heavy price, his own blood, so that we could have a close and amazing relationship with Him through the Holy Spirit living in us. Christianity is not a religious system of rules and doctrines, but a real and living relationship with the triune God because of what Jesus did, and through the working of the Holy Spirit in us. This is the basis of our walk with God. We enter into this living walk by surrendering our whole life to Jesus, and He gives us HS as the seal of our salvation and the gift of God's eternal life inside us, as well as birthing a new man (woman) of spirit inside us. Read John 3 about the new birth. I know you probably have read these scriptures many times before, but read them again for total understanding about the work of the Spirit in us as Christians. 

I vibrant walk with HS is more important than trying to live by rules and principles. Holy Spirit empowers and enables us to walk in love, which never breaks any law of God!

Be greatly blessed, Andy

The church leaders are more concerned about GOD'S WILL because both claimed to have been led to eachother but the problem is with the brother because he does not admire the sister and he has no inward love for her though he claimed to have seen some similarities between how he was led in the past and the present marriage matter

The other brothers have given some good advice, particularly that the man MUST be open and honest about his feelings (or lack thereof!). He needs to be kind and sensitive about how he presents it (in love), but he has to be real and not try to fake it til he makes it! The man needs to read Song of Solomon a few times, then pray and ask the Lord if he can give this woman at least some measure of passion and affections that he sees portrayed there. It is good not to stir up physical passions until after the vows, but there ought to be at least a little foretaste of that glory!! One cannot base a marriage on physical attractions, but the scripture is certainly not silent about it, so neither should the counsel that the couple receives! You ignore the full aspects of marriage at your own risk. One cannot get hyper-spiritual and act like there is absolutely nothing to romance and affections, neither make it everything. The fact that they have spiritual things in common is good, but may not indicate that they are meant to be married.

Thanks for being a good friend to them, Andy

 

 

Does that mean, that even though I was baptised as an infant, I do not come home to God when I die, unless I'm getting a baptism as an adult?

The thief next to Jesus on the cross could not be baptized. He simply believed and asked Jesus to remember him when He came into His kingdom. Jesus answered "Today you will be with Me in Paradise" Baptism is not necessary at all unless God has put it on your heart to obey Him in this way. Paul only baptized one or two people. But he preached to the gentiles and many believed and were saved through His preaching and teaching.

Jesus said that if your confess Him before men, He will confess you before His Father in heaven. So it is necessary that you confess your faith in Christ before others. If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9 If He is Lord of your life you desire to obey Him whether it be to confess Him or to be baptized. Believe means to trust in, adhere to and rely upon. It is not a passive word. Saving faith is an active faith.

If you are asking this question God may be putting this step on your heart. It helps us to realize that God has buried the old sinful man and given you a new life when we go under water and come up. (Baptize means to dip to dye clothing.). Sinless Jesus was baptized as an example to us, endorsing that repentance is necessary to wash away our sins. Repentance is turning away from our sinful lifestyles and to Christ in faith, asking for mercy and help because we are unable to change ouselves in our own strength. A baby cannot repent.

Ritual churches believe that the Holy Spirit comes into the baby when they are touched with blessed water and the word of God is spoken over them. Their excuse is that John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit in his mother's womb. However, we are not John the Baptist. In fact, he was the one who came preaching repentance and baptism. They also claim that whole households were baptized and that included babies. But there is no mention of any babies or young children living in those households. They are reading into it something that is not clearly stated in scripture.

The important thing is that you obey whatever Christ is leading you to do. The first thing God led me to do was to repent, ask God to forgive me, receive that forgiveness because Jesus loves me, and to try to make restitution. Then God put it upon my heart to read the New Testament and psalms. A pastor one said that the first thing he had obeyed God in, when he was 6, was to pick up his clothes and clean his room. His mom had always kept after him to do that but this time he did it without being asked by her. He was asked by God. So it is different with everybody. But all do have to repent, trust in Jesus, and obey His promptings or voice so as to make Him Lord of our lives.

Blessings,

Willa

 

Baptism is the commandment from Jesus Christ Himself (Mark 16:15-16; Matthew 28:19). It was implemented by the apostles on the day of Pentecost, those who believed were commanded to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38). Everybody who believed the gospel were baptized including Paul (Acts 8:36-39; Acts 18:8-9; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:1-7; Acts 22:16), all these tell us that baptism is very important because the apostles taught and preached it as they were led by the Holy Spirit. The thief on the cross died before Christianity and Jesus Christ whilst on earth had the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:10) so the thief on the cross was not a Christian because Christianity started on the day of Pentecost. Thanks and may God bless you

 

Eben,

This is good and correct. thank you for the post. Too much human opinion without proper scriptural backing muddies the waters (no pun intended!!)

Jerry,

Bless you my brother from Nigeria! Everyone that is a true Christian has a calling, it is just a matter of what that calling is! I trust the Holy Spirit to reveal your calling, and He will confirm it to you through some godly, Spirit-filled men in His timing, as you are willing to listen, and to discern what is truly of God and not the mere words of flattery or trickery of men. Absolutely, God wants you to draw very near to Him!

Andy

So in absolute truth, women should not be elders in the church. Adam was head over Eve, Jesus over man and man over woman when it come to the spiritual. This is the law of God. When this is altered there is a breakdown of family as we see in Eve and Adam who submitted to Eve and in the leadership of the family. Yet there have been many women in history who have been excellent as ministers of the gospel - but they have not had leadership of the church. 

In Israel, when there was spiritual apathy and no man would lead righteously, God raised up Deborah. I am not saying that there is never an exception to the principle put forth, as in this example of Deborah. However, the exception should never, ever be made the rule, but we should seek to understand why God made exception and correct ourselves! Here again, it has nothing to do with intrinsic superiority of giftedness of men, but merely God's divine order of headship and authority. Many times, God has much smarter and more gifted people under the authority of another simply because the person in authority handles that aspect of things better.

Women are amazing and wonderful and gifted!!!!

Blessings, Andy

 

That said I'd probably not join a church where a woman was an ordained pastor. An elder? Yes, I wouldn't have a problem with women being elders. Of course I see the office of a deacon (servant) and an elder (leader) in the church as two different positions.

I understand Timothy's position on elders and deacons but how do you see them in regard to women as opposed to minister?

 

A couple of things. Separation of the role of pastoring (shepherding) and being an elder is a a contrivance and not scriptural. A plurality of Elders co-pastored the early churches, and these Elders would have a mixture of the ministry gifts. Look at the church of Antioch for a prime example. The word "pastor" is a verb pertaining to shepherding, leading, everywhere in the NT except where directly connected to teaching, which happens to be the primary difference between the qualifications for Elder and Deacon (look it up!) A pastor and Elder are two different things only in the mind of the traditions of men, not the scriptures.

This entire discussion seems to miss a key point. Look at the verse that Paul quotes to support his statement about women in authority over a man.  Paul goes all the way back to the original marriage, which is God's pattern of authority. This has nothing to do with ancient culture (sorry Spock!) nor is it any sort of bash on women. Paul, by the Holy Spirit, is protecting the sanctity of divine order in the home by maintaining this order also in the church. If the woman is Elder, then she is now head over her own husband in all matters pertaining to the church. Even if she is a co-Elder, there still is no clear headship there.

Notice how Paul links teaching and authority over the man. This is the key to understanding the issue. Having said this, women should be free to exercise any Spiritual gift in the church as long as it is not an action of taking direct authority over her husband, and is in submission to the eldership, as with the men also, The NT absolutely encourages, even COMMANDS women to teach younger women and many other things. We need to not dig around to put artificial boundaries on anyone, neither do we have liberty to disregard such a clear doctrine by injected cultural arguments. Headship does not indicate any inequality! Jesus is not oppressed by His Father's headship!!

This is such a highly charged issue because people interpolate scripture and try to read their own pre-conceived notions into it, instead of simply studying it out prayerfully and accept the interpretation of scripture weighed against scripture alone. Culture and tradition tend to be the purest enemies of absolute truth. Would that I, and all of us could steadfastly guard against every single influence of these when we approach the scriptures. Let us not become so familiar with debating the Word that we get lax and flippant with it! May it never be!!!!!

PS- creepy oppressive men who abuse their authority and do not love their wives as Christ loves the church fuel huge fires of difficulty with the issues. This in no way, though changes absolute truth. 

Sunflower,

You have a relationship with the Lord. You love the Lord. Therefore, He is the most important person in your life, even though He is physically unseen. This does not make sense to people who do not believe. It makes them often uncomfortable.

You did not mention if your friend professes to believe in Christ.

If he does, then his behavior contradicts this, as all true Christians LOVE to talk about Jesus! If he is not a Christian, then your job is to show Christ to him through your words and actions. However, you must be careful how close you get to him, or to lead him on romantically, because darkness and light cannot fellowship together. You can surely be a witness and light to him, but you cannot have a binding relationship with an unbeliever. I can give you scripture refs if you need, but I suspect you may already know what I am talking about

BTW I am raising or have raised 7 teenagers, and have been a youth leader, so I have seen many times how this works. Please be careful! 

I have always believed what the scripture tells me,never to lean on my own understanding,because in the multitude of consellors there is safty,what iam about to share with you guys now,has been in my mind for a very long time now,exactly two years ago,i encounter a dream where i was on top of a ladder,all of a suddenly the ladder started to shake,before i could say Jesus is the answer,i fail down from that ladder,luckly for me i landed inside a small church,where few people were praying,i woke up immediately,since that very day till this day,i kept on seeing the picture of the dream,my mind kept on reciting it,i encounter this dream on January 2012" on 27th of may 2013" my best year on earth so far in life,i had a divine encounter with God,in that the same church i landed in the dream,through a servant of God,that day mark a new era in my life,God by the power of His Grace,mercy and favour,brought my years in the pit of bondage were i was sentence to die by my adversaries to an end,even up till now this dream is still a mystery to me,i encounter this dream while i was in the city,last year that is 2013"something happen to me,out of confusion,infact i don't know what i was doing at that moment,i found myself in my village,that was how i located that small church that i landed in the dream,I pray that Joseph of our own generation will look into this my thread,and help me out with this dreamed.God bless you all.

I hope I am rightly understanding your story so that I give a correct interpretation! It seems clear that the ladder was your effort to climb to a certain place or position or result. When your plans were shaken, the Lord blessed you by having you "land" in this small congregation. I would say that this is a divine appointment. I cannot tell you whether you are the answer to some of their prayers, or whether you will be blessed and helped by these faithful praying brothers and sisters in Christ, or both. That is for you to find out

Thank you Andy, after I made and posted the comment, I started thinking the same thing. The comment needs qualification. There is much more that can be said in answer to the question. But like you said, it is a beginning. The comment does clarify the notion that some people have that Jesus is on the same level as Buddha and that Christianity is only one option among many options. God Bless you Andy.

Bless you, gamnot!

On another thread, someone said that people try to use belief in Jesus almost like the "secret password" into heaven, as though mouthing certain words gets you in. What you said is perfectly good and scriptural, its just that modern churchianity and easy-beliefism has hijacked much of the phrasings, so now we need to clarify!! I hate man's false religion with a passion!

Willa,

most of what you said there was fine, but it is not at all accurate to say that "Paul only baptized one or two people". Check Acts 16:15, 16:33, and 19:5. You are probably thinking of Paul's statement to the Corinthians that he was glad he did not baptize but a few of them. The context was division in the church because they were following men improperly. Paul was not flippant about baptizing people, and while water baptism does not save a person, it is overstating things to make it seem that Paul, the greatest missionary of the first century, did not water baptize those he brought to Christ. Please be careful with the scriptures!!

A Christian is a person who believes that Jesus is the "Only begotten" unique Son of God and that there is no other way to the Father except being led by the Son and that there is no way to the Son except being drawn to him by the Father.

This is true! I would clarify the word "believe", because there is much confusion today surrounding that word. It's a good word, but it has somehow gotten watered down to mostly mean that you think that something is true. Jesus demands that one must have faith in Him, which means to TRUST Him utterly, completely. Yes, one must believe in the historical Jesus and in His death, burial, and resurrection. The type of belief or faith that results in salvation is one that submits to the person of Jesus. This act of surrender, if genuine in God's sight, not man's, will result in the Holy Spirit regenerating, making alive, that person's inner man. This is the new birth, and to be a Christian, one must be born anew. Christianity is not adherence to a set of certain beliefs in and of itself, but a surrender to Christ that opens a new and living relationship with Him. There is much more to be said, but that is a beginning.

Blessings, Andy 

absolutely, Driven. Joshua-777 also good words!

Driven, I thought this is what you were communicating, not that we can eradicate the sinful nature, but an exhortation to press on to maturity and a firm walk in the Spirit as a means of overcoming sin. Right??

We are getting deep here folks, and I like it! 

It is true that the identity for the true Christian is SAINT (hagios-holy (set apart) ones). We are redeemed, we are the children of the living God and our adopted spirit cries out ABBA Father! There is a sinful nature resident in our tent, our body. Because of this, we need to be being continually filled with Holy Spirit and walk in Him so that we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh (sarx -sinful nature). A person can be as free from sin as what they are surrendered to the Spirit. We can only be entirely freed from the sinful nature by ridding ourself of the body (death or translation), but this in no way means that we cannot resist the activity of sin. Much of the NT, some of which has been quoted in this thread, speaks to instructing the Christian how to not sin, how to walk in the Spirit. If one can abstain from sin for 5 seconds, then one can for 5 minutes, 5 hours, etc. It is simply a matter of submitting oneself as a living sacrifice, putting on the full armor of God, etc. and so forth ad nauseum!!! I disagree with the assessment that born-again Christians cannot help but sin continuously. That gravitates against hundreds of verses instructing us n ot to sin and how not to sin. If it were all in vain, then why all the exhotations!?!?

I think that Matt 7:21-23 clearly shows the difference between mere religiosity and  living relationship with Christ. As in many of Jesus' parables, He is making one main point, and this is the main point. The verse is not a doctrinal treatise on who can or cannot do miracles in His name. the plain fact is that the verses DO NOT attest in any way to the genuineness of the miracles. This is not really the point of what Jesus is saying. The point here is that one can attempt to do ANYTHING in His name as some sort of religious act, but if Christ does not "Know" you, you will not enter into His kingdom. I have no problem with going elsewhere in scripture to try to make the case, but it could be irresponsible to start speculating on implications that are just not clearly in the text. This is one of the basic rules of interpreting the parables of Jesus: He is always making a main point, and it is not wise to look too hard for hidden doctrines within his stories. I understand multi-layered prophecies and all of that, I just feel that caution is wise in these sort of cases. MANY strange doctrines come from using such methods.

Spock, you are hilarious! I like the "joyful Jesus" portrayed, i think it was in the movie "The Gospel of Matthew". I think the old spaced-out hippie "Jesus of Nazareth" is waaaaay off base! Jesus told jokes, I am convinced!