Lien (pen name) is a most delightful brother in the Lord. I never saw him unruffled about anything as it can be easily gleaned by his words below. He has been unfairly passed over in the churchish circles for he his also a quietly outspoken man, in full transparency. But the Lord knows him and he shall receive fully his reward. It has been my privilege of having known Lien. The Lord has been most merciful for having put this man alongside my person. Thank you Lien, you are a true friend and a beautiful brother in the Lord.
Firstly these few comments paint a picture of the sad state of our "culcha".
A senior lecturer in sociology at Monash University, Dr Neville Knight, said the question of masculine role models was further complicated by profound changes in society's expectations of men and women, family life and employment. Economic globalisation and the feminist movement had rapidly broken down traditional male roles as family breadwinner and protector, while at the same time the authority of potential substitutes, such as the church, had been diminished. The result was a lot of men uncertain of their own place in the new order, much less where their sons might fit in.
No one to date, has researched the negative impact of the feminisation of popular culture on boys/men, and while some may rejoice in the feminisation of popular culture, the truth is that the negative impact on boys/men has not been measured, and worse still, even considered as an appropriate issue for discussion. It's time producers/script writers stopped their male bashing and returned to more traditional sex role depiction. As anthropologist Margaret Mead well said, "finding roles for women isn't the problem - finding one for men is."
I must give credit to this Doctor, for having found some of the roots of the problem, however it is obvious that he has no real solution nor the strength and conviction of finding a lasting solution to it. Even if the solution were to be given to him, he would not believe it, let alone do anything to implement it. Stopping male bashing would help, but the fully effective solution is of course in the "Story Infinite". To tell you the truth, my dear friend Lien, I guess yourself do not quite believe it and are not prepared to put your neck out to boldly proclaim it, thus, if a man of your calibre is wavering on the issue, what hope have we got??
The idea of research is just the usual scientific justification to avoid doing anything to reverse the damning trend. Do we really believe that after a scientific investigation lasting tens of years and coming up with the evidence that all of us already know because it is plainly seen all around us, they can actually devise anything able to reverse the trend?? Or will they actually be game enough to implement it? Only those who believe in UFOs or flying pink piglets would trust in that. The truth of the matter is precisely shown in what appeared in an Australian Newspaper recently:
Schoolboys deprived of educational role models
By AMANDA DUNN
Tuesday 12 June 2001
Boys were disadvantaged and alienated at school by a lack of male educational role models and by teaching methods that failed to recognise their particular learning needs, educators said yesterday.
A report in yesterday's Age, based on research from Adelaide's Flinders University, showed widespread disillusionment in school for boys in years 9 to 11 fuelled by a disconnection from curriculum and a belief that girls were favoured by teachers.
Wes Imms, a former teacher who is completing a doctoral thesis on gender issues in schools, said teaching methods and content needed to better suit boys' particular needs.
"I think something that we've not done very well in the past is acknowledge the fact that boys and girls do tend to learn differently," he said.
Boys tended to be more active and physical in their learning than girls. Where girls are often happy to sit and listen to instructions, he said, boys are often more anxious to rush in and try for themselves, which they were not always free to do.
Mr Imms said past research had tended to look at boys themselves, rather than a slanted curriculum, as the problem. "If any attention at all has been paid to boys in the literature over the past few years, it tends to be what we can do to fix them to make them more like girls," he said.
Anne Magee, a senior teacher at Xavier College, said it was important for boys to have greater access to young, male teachers who could act as educational role models for them.
Do note the surprise in this femaleís writing expression and the "wisdom" of the female senior teacher. If men do not know who they should be, anymore, how can they possibly help these poor lost boys and if, in the unlikely case, they actually knew what the male role was, she would promptly removed them from telling the boys that "man is the image and glory of God, whilst the woman is the glory of man", pronto. But that is the role of manhood. Say, why doesnít she send them to me, for I do know what the male role is. Do you reckon she would send them to me, from Xavier an ex all-boys college???
Now this could have been a funny one, if it wasnít so true. Some ten years ago a did read in the age about a Swedish woman that was running courses for men because men in Sweden had lost their identity of manhood. Did you get that? A woman teaching men how to be men!!! Mind-boggling.
The Statement of Margaret Mead clearly proves that she knows not God as God.
The whole miserable situation is like this because men let it come about, nothing much different from the Garden of Eden scene. Like Adam of old, for fear of making the woman upset men gave in, even against the clear command of the Lord. Look at our churches, who lets women preach? The men, of course, for fear of loosing members, these men even concoct doctrinal distortions to justify themselves in going against the clearly specified Godís order.
But God is not mocked. Read in my site: <church order> <women > <Is Eve listening to the voice of the serpent, again?>
Incidentally when I was in Melbourne I did set up a men group to counteract these heresies. We met once a month at my place because KJC did not give me permission to do it at the church for he feared the women would challenge him for that. Now listen to what one of these men said to me recently, after making contact with me, 8 years later:
aymon de albatrus my Lord's Worthy Servant
How are you my friend ? I hope the Lord's work for you in Italy is bringing you joy. I recently attended a "flea market" for want of another word in Victory Blve, you old stomping ground which brought to my mind most fond memories of our monthly gatherings in the Lord's name at your home. I still look upon these times as a real blessing and am yet to find a suitable substitute.
I am pretty sure that my dear friend Phill will not be able to find a substitute.
Now, why donít you and Allan start one at your home, for you know there is a desperate need for it, if your wives let you, that is. Try it and see their response. Try also with KJC and you will be in danger of excommunication. But say that there is a need of a women group to study, divide and dissect the Word of God, and see the difference.
Doubly incidentally, I tried to set up a similar group for men in my church here, and I am doing well if I am still in one piece in that church. Last pagan Easter a family invited me to their home for lunch and in conversation the wife told me that if I had gone ahead with the idea of a menís group she would not have permitted her husband to attend. QED.
I have been examining your most detailed "The Story Infinite" It is a most impressive & scholarly Biblical examination. I attempted a similar appraisal last year when Kevin C. prepared a document in support of the appointment of female elders at WCF. He clearly has adjusted much of his earlier ideas.
I only have one copy. I trashed others only recently otherwise I could have forwarded it to you.
You are very kind to me, for I consider myself just a pipsqueak. But be careful, for you may give me a big head and I will start floating around. One thing I must testify though, and that is that I am convinced the Lord has granted my deep request for since being converted my heart-felt prayer has always been: "Lord I pray, do give me Your truth, not the churchís truth, not my truth or the worldís BUT Yours and Yours alone, Amen". Truly, by Grace of the Lord, I relate to:
In that same hour He (Jesus) was full of joy in the Holy Spirit and said, I give praise to you, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have kept these things secret from the wise and the men of learning, and have made them clear to little children: for so, O Father, it was pleasing in your eyes. (Luke 10:21 BBE)
Hence, as it is plain to see, it is not how learned one is, or intelligent but it is above all: Revelation by Grace. Deu 29:29.
The way I picture this is that there is a road that eventually splits in two ways, one leads to the truth whilst the other to the never-never. If a learned scholar takes the never-never road, all his learning and thoroughness will serve him nought for on that road it is impossible to get to the truth, whilst a simpleton like myself who takes the way leading to the truth, he will surely get to the truth, notwithstanding his simplicity. And as to which road one takes, it is given by the Lord.
Incidentally, I am sure I gave you this book "Truths that Transform" by James Kennedy. If not, get it, read it, for it really transforms.
I have recently found a good account of A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality in Good News for Women by Rebecca Groothuis
Well, generally I do not read things written by women, firstly because of the reason as to why women are forbidden to teach, and to govern, is based on the fact that Eve gave wrong advise to Adam and for that God put a ban on women teaching, so I do not see why I should disobey God for being democratic and scientific, both ungodly things; and secondly I have noticed that men who read womenís writings are indeed poorly advised for they approach the "weaker vessel" to know something, when in fact they are ordered to instead teach the "weaker vessel", reversal of roles, a-al-Garden.. Not for me, thanks. Besides the Word of God speaks of "Gender Difference" and not of "Equality" Deu 22:5. And there you have it, even starting from the title, error is already evident. The only gender "Equality" in the Word is that of salvation: 1Pe 3:7.
but on the other hand a contrary proposal closer to much that you have put together by F La Gard Smith "Men of Strength for Women of God". He asked the question Has the time come for shared spiritual leadership? You would find his complementing your own.
Look Lien, either my exposition is correct or it is wrong, there is no such thing as "scientific investigation" in God, it is REVEALED by God and if He does not reveal it, then we are just Dodos parading in delusion. If I am right then all these are wrong, if I am wrong then the opposite applies. You got to choose your camp, this or that, but not in both. Now this is where the modern weakness of men is, they cannot make up their mind and they are befuddled and therefore lost, for the evil-one can easily make mincemeat of them using the scholastic methods and the democratic ways. A thing to be noted and seriously consider in this "shared spiritual leadership".
This brings to mind the Catholic situation where they wanted to officially (in practice she is already so) make Mary a shared "saviour" with Christ, that is, co-redemptrix. Our situation is very much the same thing. You will find very common in the Protestant circle that man is (was) sort of accepted as having spiritual authority over the wife, but not in the natural. This opened the path to woman being able to have a career of their own, outside their husbandís jurisdiction, even not taking his name, thus making themselves separate and not "One". Nice blow by the evil-one to destroy the family, and foolish men not only gobbled the Lie, but helped forcefully in implementing it, because the authority was only "spiritual". But what saith Scripture: "But even as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives to their own husbands in everything. (Ephesians 5:24 LIT) Does EVERYTHING leaves ANYTHING out??
As far as sharing leadership, the Romans at the beginning of the republic tried to have two consuls to run Rome, but the system was unworkable and the republic failed miserably.
Have you seen any bus with two driving wheels? Where you think such a bus will go? Off the road, of course. Have you seen any ship with two captains? Where you think it will land? Yes! On the rocks. Have you seen any organism or any organisation with two heads, actually working? Me thinks not. This idea of shared leadership is a plot of the feminist (and the like) to stupefy poor gentle and delicate men with the intention to softly and "democratically" get to full women leadership. Do not be fooled, my man.
The reality of life is this: EITHER MAN RULES, IN HIS GOD GIVEN ROLE, or THE WOMEN WILL. Gen 3:16.
That is, there are only two possibilities: Rule or be ruled. Which one will you have, Oh man!
See Isaiahís lamentations: As for My people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over him. Oh My people, your rulers cause you to go astray, and they swallow the way of your paths. (Isaiah 3:12 LIT) Isnít this not a perfect description of our own evil times?
Has the time come for shared spiritual leadership? Well it seems that not mane have read this verse: For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. (Malachi 3:6 AV) and to boot: Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. (James 1:17 AV)
Could it be possible that for about 6000 years (date of man out of Eden) the immutable laws of God were never challenged, but in the last 50 years (or less) the unchangeable laws of God need to be "updated" especially in harmony with the inception of feminist? Methinks to smell a rat. Certainly such idea is not found in the Bible. Surely we do not adapt the Bible to times and societies, but times and societies are judged by the Bible. If you do not believe that, then my friend, your Christianity is truly on shaky grounds.
In almost all documents of these kind little regard is given for distinguishing between custom (or culture) and Divine order. Furthermore, little effort is made to distinguish between function and office. or between New Testament actuality and contemporary church structure and institution.
In regard to the latter I have always been in conflict with Kevin C. Originally it was just a matter of the age in regard to eldership. Clearly changes brought about in managing (administering) a Church WCF in particular causes substantial differences of opinion.
One question that has never been answered to my satisfaction is why particular persons were "appointed" to office. It has always been answered negatively as to why such persons should not be appointed.
Frankly I am not precisely sure what you mean by that, but I can guess. Personally I want to be, by the grace of God, an "orthodox" Christian. By that I mean a man that is not befuddled by customs, culture, society or even church dictates, but be one of these: But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. (Romans 11:4 AV) 1Ki 19:18
When people bring into the picture the culture and society and how the world lives, they simply say: "We do not believe in the Bible as it is, it is man that dictates how the Bible should be interpreted for it must be subjected to culture and society of man, for it is man that is the captain of his soul, not God.". It is as simple as that. Surely it is not mankind that decides what the Bible says, but Its author, i.e. God. All over the Word we see that to interpret Scriptures one has to have the mind of God, not the mind of the world, e.g. culture, customs. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:15-16 AV)
Of corse people are so keen to have the Bible adapted to societyís culture for they do not have the mind of God, but the mind of the world, and this includes very many "christians". Just take notice of what God has to say about this matter:
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. (James 4:4 AV) and to boot Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. (1 John 2:15 AV)
Therefore, my dear friend, how can the spiritual be discerned with a natural, carnal mind-set? Impossible. In my opinion any one that presses on the point that the Bible must conform to the ways of society (the world) he is no Christian at all.
In a nutshell, what is done in culture (custom) is to be rejected, out rightly for the reasons given above. A True Christian is not troubled but what the world says or does, what matters to him is Godís commands. Not the worldís ways and dictates.
I have always been in despair in regard to the contemporary "War of the Sexes" humanity is male and female in biological, psychological, emotional etc complementarity in order to make ONE human.
The Rabbinic view (and mine to some extent) is that in Adam there was both the human male part and the female part, for Eve was not created but extracted (in a sense, cloned) from Adam. Besides there are the references of the two becoming one, however there remains what Jesus did not answer fully: what would be the status of the woman in Heaven. That is, if she is one with her husband on earth what will she be there, and the unmarried women?? If we say they are individuals like angels, well what it then means to be "one". Is seems a case of Deu 29:29.
That is why Patriarchy is just as contrary to the purposes of god as is the modern growth of Matriarchy.
I would not rush in with such a statement. That Matriarchy is not on, is clearly and strongly evidenced by the Bible, for God specifically excluded women to rule, to govern and to have leadership of any kind, be it spiritual or natural.
But Patriarchy is the stuff of the Bible from the beginning till "democracy" came about, democracy being the best weapon devised by the evil-one to bring down mankind. Democracy and Communism are not that far apart, for both are alternatives to do away with God, as todayís Science does. Surely, I will agree that Patriarchy and Democracy cannot co-exist, for they are mutually exclusive. Say, do you think that Heaven, where God has His "Headquarters", is ruled "democratically or Patriarchally??? What Scripture says: Ö... Thy will be done, as in Heaven, so on earth. (Luke 11:2 KJ21) Will there be democracy in Heaven? Will the Saint vote "democratically" on what decision God should take? These ideas are not short of blasphemy. Is there a Supreme Patriarch in Heaven? Yes! GOD. Should we then copy the worldís way or implement Godís command? In Heaven, God commands, and it is done, not debated.
The famous 3 Patriarchs were not rejected by God, but approved. David himself is exalted as a Patriarch. My dear friend, this is what the modern world: feminists, leftists, modernists, liberals and the like diabolic perversions would have you believe, you and the rest of the men. I fear that they have already succeeded in mentally castrating the men and the battle is over, except the direct intervention of the Lord, that is my only hope. Selah.
Check the attributes of the Patriarchs and then match them against the attributes of God and you will soon conclude that God is the Patriarch of Patriarchs. Jesus Himself said, times and times again: "of my own I can do nothing, I do only my Fathersí meat, etc" and even though He considered Himself as God, He was/is in subjection to the Father notwithstanding being ONE with him. And there is no sharing of rulership in the Godhead: The Father decrees and the Son implements through the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is submitted to both the Father and the Son, whilst the Son is submitted to the Father. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. (1 Corinthians 11:3 AV) Does it says the head of Christ is God? YES Does it say that the head of the woman is the man? YES Is there any hinting of shared leadership? Of course not, and then why do we want to change the Word of God as if our "democratic" culture knows more than He does, the creator and sustainer of ALL that has been created!!!
Donít you agree that this is high rebellion, with arrogant presumption, to God?
Speaking of mental castration, I once read a secular book that was presenting the story of a famous Roman Gladiator that offended the Emperor who punished him to be taken by a Legion to the frozen North to die there. On the way they had to pass through the Germanic hordes that were cannibals. Well the General sent an advanced squadron into the woods to see where the hated enemy was, but they were caught, killed and cooked. Eventually the legion came, the Germans fled leaving behind the cooked, but not fully eaten Romans body parts. The General instead of making a glorious funeral for the heroic fallen, he let the whole region march in front of the gruesome site. A de-habilitating mental castration fell on the whole legion. The next morning the Romans found themselves surrounded by a Germanic multitude and being mentally inhibited they started lamenting their end just like the eaten comrades they had seen the day before. With determination the Gladiator grabbed a sword from the nearest legionnaire and ran in the open and started shouting in perfect Latin: "You miserable Germanic skunks, dirt of the earth, miserable excrement of your whoring mothers, etc, how can you possibly think to take on the glorious all powerful Romans, run away before we chop you up and make sausages out of you, Ö..and more such niceties". Of course the Germans did not understand a word of this, but the legionaries did. Then he beckoned the biggest German klutz to come forward and with just a couple chops he was done, then two brothers, then a group, and so on. The Gladiator knew his trade and in a few moments a large number of lifeless Germans were piled on the ground. Seen this powerful display of Roman potency, in a flash the mental haziness lifted from the Legionnairesí minds and with a huge shout they come forward and utterly destroyed the numerically superior German horde.
Now this is the situation with men today, they are mentally castrated and impotent because they are believing the Lie.
Another, fully witnessed by myself. I was born in the country and noted this behaviour in the chickens. Unfortunately for them and forbidden by God, most male chicken get the painful physical chop so to become fatter for the 25th of Decemberís pagan feastings. Well, I noticed that these poor creatures were continually attacked by the hens, this is where the term "henpecked" comes from, I guess. But more strikingly, I noticed the behaviour in the chicks. Every spring the brood would hatch and slowly grow. Whilst the "would be" roosters (that fortunately received not the chop to their proverbial for they were selected to fertilise) were growing the hens did henpecked them continually until the roosters would grow big enough to challenge the hens. The battle would be drawn and if the rooster was not ready yet, he would be beaten, but soon after little more growth, another battle would ensue. This time the rooster would prevail and very severely peck the hen to running blood. Afterwards this beaten hen would be the most obedient, and when he called she would be the first one to arrive. Not unlike "the taming of the shrew", if you understand what I mean. This I noticed as a child, but understood not, then. Now I do.
Incidentally, I also noticed the same behaviour with cows and gelded "bulls".
This is today situation: the men, mentally castrated and running for cover being chased by the women henpecking them.
REMEMBER: there are only two possibilities:
You Rule, Or You Are Ruled, and there is no such thing as "shared rulership", it is a lie.
In God's eyes (in my view) men and women are of equal worth, value etc but have different functions.
Equally worth. Will answer this by letting you answer two questions:
Has God created ALL equal?
And a voice came out from the throne, saying, Praise our God, all His slaves, and the ones fearing Him, the small and the great. (Revelation 19:5 LIT)
What other interpretation, other that the plain one, can be given to this?
For truly a man ought not to have the head covered, being [the] image and glory of God. But woman is [the] glory of man; for man is not of the woman, but woman of man; for also man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man; because of this, the woman ought to have authority on the head, because of the angels. (1 Corinthians 11:7-10 LIT)
As you can see God has created "great" and "small" and as to the relationship between the man and the woman compared to that of God and Christ, as Scripture says: ÖÖ. I am going to the Father; for My Father is greater than I. (John 14:28 LIT)
The only thing that can biblically be said is this: As God and Christ are of the same essence, for Christ proceeded from the Father, so man and woman are of the same essence for the woman proceeded from the man.
Man and woman are of the same essence and both have access to salvation in Christ, this is the true statement.
As far as worth, it is just as saying: "How much is a lump of gold worth?" Depends on the beholder, for gold has no intrinsic worth of his own. In this case no one knows the worth of man or woman in Godís eyes. One thing we do know, because God has told us, and that is <man is the image and glory of God, whilst the woman is the glory of man>. There is a difference for man has the primacy.
Different function, yes, absolutely, for God so decreed, as plainly spelled out in His Word.
My Lien, surely this is plain to see.
And in agreement with you, almost all problems, go back to Adam's disobedience to cover his deceived wife. That is why MEN remain accountable before God and that is why there should always be divine order and Masculine headship. But headship carrying awesome responsibility, love. It is interesting to note that as far as I am aware no women is ever asked to love her husband in the same way as the Man is commanded to love his wife.
All this agreed with.
Man is commanded to love (AGAPE) his wife but his wife is to love PHILEO her husband. Tit 2:4
Agape is the love of Benevolence, as God has towards His elect whilst Phileo is the love of Affection, never said of God towards man. Have a look at my study on the subject in my site: i.e "Love"
Man is asked to Agape his wife for he is the image and glory of God, and has to display Godsí attributes on earth.
He must however, earn her respect. etc.
I am challenging you to prove from the Bible your statement: "He must however, earn her respect". You will not be able to. It is rather the wife that has to "win" her husband over, by her obedient behaviour. Likewise, wives, submitting yourselves to [your] own husbands, that even if any disobey the word, through the behaviour of the wives, without a word they will be won, (1 Peter 3:1 LIT)
The man is commanded to Agape his wife, Full Stop.
The woman is to submit (Obey Tit 2:5 KJ) to her husband, Full Stop.
There are no conditions or contingencies, but irrefutable commands.
The main reason the debate on female ministry continues is out of expediency and the failure of men to function according to Godly instruction.
Hence, in attempting to answer the issues you have addressed we must also address the functioning of the Church as the Body of Christ not as some institution. Moreover, we need to address what cultural changes are significant and what are not. Cultures are different YES ! they are not necessarily bad.
I came to be aware of these kinds of question amongst Aboriginal people in far Western Australia.
First sentence, agreed, of course, it so plain to see.
The rest, my reading of the Word has convinced me that it is the Bible that transcends any culture and society, and not vice versa, as mentioned before. Why?? Because God "CHANGES NOT"
The one difficulty I have in a first cursory overview of you excellent (and thorough) exegesis concerns the study in regard to fear. This has me foxed.
Of course this has you stumped. For far too long you have been fully immersed in this compromised "Christianity".
These days we have no idea about the fear of the Lord, we think of Him just as a father Christmas that must fulfil every one of our whimsical desire, or else, for it is due to us and we must claim it. The same is for women, who think that the husband was made for them to use and misuse. The truth is that it is the woman that was made for man to be his help meet, not his colleague or his boss, for without the man there would be no need of woman, independently of what Margaret Mead says.
The word fear is in the Bible and even in relation of woman to man, independently of what all the modernists of the world say. They can accept it or reject it, but it cannot be changed. Check the Greek for yourself, in Eph 5:33. I have other witnesses, both the Darby and the 1901 American Standard Version translate that word properly "fear".
But *ye* also, every one of you, let each so love his own wife as himself; but as to the wife [I speak] that she may fear the husband. (Darby) Nevertheless do ye also severally love each one his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see that she fear her husband. (1901 American Standard Version)
Still another witness that can be seen printed as it is, and thus not denied, in your KJV: While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear. (1 Peter 3:2 AV)
Lien, how far have we come from the Truth: And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Kings 22:11 AV)
The ChurchĖnamely pulpit and pewĖ was in my opinion never envisioned. In any case I reckon it is way passed its use by date. Nevertheless, this is what we are lumbered with. Concepts which I feel would and should be consistent with opportunities for women to minister concern spirit inspiration given to ALL 1Co 12:4-11; Rom 12:4-8; Eph 4:11-12 after instruction from those in 11 to do the work of ministry. I think you have covered the woman apostle Rom 16:7 and women prophesying 1Co 11:5 as co-workers Phi 4:2-3 and Rom 16:6; 12. and even leading small groups Col 4:15.
A monolithic church such as the Roman Catholics, was definitely not intended for by natural needs a head is required to keep the whole castle together and this head would likely be given a status of demigod, thus supplanting Christ, as we have living proof. However Paul speaks of appointing elders to the churches and gives clear instructions for the appointment of ruling officials. My conviction is that God gives plenty room as for the size of the church, but the overall set up is a church ruled by several elders and served by several deacons. Whether they meet in houses or in a building I guess it matters not that much, it is a matter of convenience, as long as everything is done in order and in the fear of the Lord. The keeping of order is necessary for not every one who says "I am a Christian" is such, as well evidenced in the NT. I do not see in the NT the existence of a "royal family" but I see members of the same family following the footsteps of each other, in Christ.
Before commenting on the above verses I shall mention something that with all probabilities you are not aware of. Every one of the letters written by Paul was written to the men (brethren, masculine adelphos), check this for yourself. For example look to the following references, at least, in the book of Romans 1:13; 7:1; 7:4; 8:12; 10:1; 12:1; 15:14; 15:15; 15:30; 16:17. This is an important factor for it proves that not all that was written was applicable to both male and female. These letters were sent to the men (the image and glory of God) to study and understand and then implement the contents in the church/es. So when we read things like: Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. (Ephesians 5:21 AV) it does not mean men have to submit to the women, for this will make nonsense of the whole Bile, but by keeping in mind that Paul wrote to men, we understand that he meant that men should submit to other men in a proper God given relationship. Can you see how things can be distorted in interpreting without proper reference?
And here is proof of what I am saying:
I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren. (1 Thessalonians 5:27 AV)
"brethren" Strong 80 adelphos, ad-el-fosí = brothers, male.
No doubt you listed these verses to prove interchangeability between man and woman, but do let me have a go.
And there are differences of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are differences of ministries, yet the same Lord. And there are differences of workings, but the same God is working all things in all. And to each one is given the showing forth of the Spirit to [our] profit. For through the Spirit is given to one a word of wisdom, and to another a word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; and to another, faith by the same Spirit, and to another, gifts of healing by the same Spirit, and to another, workings of powers, and to another, prophecy, and to another, discerning of spirits, and to another, kinds of languages, and to another, interpretation of languages. But the one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing separately to each as He wills. (1 Corinthians 12:4-11 LIT)
Do remember that these letters were written to the "adelphos" and therefore are primarily directed to the men. Now I am not forgetting the famous passage of Joel 2:28 and the reference to the Spirit that works as He wills. So from my part there is no denial that the Spirit can and does give as He wills, even though many denominations believe that these gifts have been done away with the closure of Scripture, (not my belief). I then say; sure let women (proven with these gifts) perform, but in accordance with Godís order: by having long hair and wearing a veil as commanded by God in 1Co 11 as a sign of submission to their head, i.e. husbands, when prying and prophesising. No problem with that, but are they doing so, in these evil days? You said it, NO. Thus how they can possibly exercise these gifts when they are in open rebellion to Godís order? What you say to that? Methinks, things being so, it is but a circus.
For even as we have many members in one body, but all members do not have the same function, so we the many are one body in Christ, and each one members of one another, but having different gifts according to the grace given to us, whether prophecy, according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, in the ministry; or the [one] teaching, in the teaching; or the [one] exhorting, in the encouragement; the [one] sharing, in simplicity; the [one] taking the lead, in diligence; the [one] showing mercy, in cheerfulness. (Romans 12:4-8 LIT)
DITTO, and teaching is out for women. "given to us" who is us? Remember these letters were written to men.
And indeed He gave some [to be] apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists; and some pastors and teachers; with a view to the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ, (Ephesians 4:11-12 LIT)
Surely you are not suggesting that women can partake in these ministries? Every one of these ministries intrinsically involve ruling, governing and teaching, roles to which women are specifically barred to partake in, as explained previously, This is the crux of the whole discussion we have here.
Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners, noted among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. (Romans 16:7 LIT)
Again, surely you are not suggesting that these guys were "apostles"? Besides, the phrase can just as well be understood that Andronicus and Junias were known to the Apostles as persons and reputed by them of some worth for their behaviour. In no way this phrase can be construed to mean that A and J were actual apostles, for sure. Moreover Scripture speaks of no other apostles other than the twelves, Matthias who replaced Judas and of the least of the Apostles, Paul. Would you not think that if A and J were actual Apostles we would have heard something of them in a more specific way. Methinks people who makes them apostles are grabbing straws to force an apostleship on a presumed woman, "Junias". The truth is that up to date there is not one scrap of evidence that proves that the name Junias is either masculine or feminine, both from Scripture and from secular writings. In any case, it matters not for both A and J were not apostles. Any one that makes anything out of this verse he is doing so without Scriptural evidence.
And every woman praying or prophesying with the head unveiled dishonours her head, for it is the same [as] being shaved. (1 Corinthians 11:5 LIT)
Well, we talked already about this one, but do note that the emphasis of this verse is not on prophesying, but on the dishonour and rebellion in a woman that prays or prophesies without having long hair and veiled. Do your women pray with the veil on their long hair in your church? Let alone when prophesying! So, what do you say to that? And who do you think "her head" is?
I entreat Euodias, and I entreat Syntyche, to mind the same thing in [the] Lord. And I also ask you, true yoke-fellow, help those who struggled along with me and with Clement in the gospel, and the rest, fellow-workers with me, whose names [are] in the Scroll of Life. (Philippians 4:2-3 LIT)
Obviously here you emphasise the words "fellow workers" as including women. What is so revelatory in this, fellow workers is properly applicable to women as participants in establishing the kingdom of God on Earth in being "help-meet" to their husbands. It is quite in order as soldiers participating in a war with their Generals and Officers, all of them a are fellow workers, whether a 5 star General or a latrine soldier whose names are in the roll of the army. I just do not get the "big deal" here. The thing to note is rather the bigness of Paulís heart in dealing with these two troublesome women E and S who needed to be reprimanded and to submit to the will of God. Did you mention that, of course not.
Greet the brothers in Laodicea, and Nymphas and the church in his house. (Colossians 4:15 LIT)
On the gender of Nymphas we have no doubts for the same verse says "his house". So where is your proof that women in the NT were leading small groups? Not here.
<And Nymphas; which some, unskilful in the Greek language, have took for a woman; whereas it is the name of a man, as the following words show; and is a contraction of Nymphios, or Nymphidios, or Nymphodoros:
and the church which is in his house. This man seems to have been an inhabitant of Laodicea, and that the church there met at his house to worship God, to pray unto him, sing his praise, hear his word, and attend on all ordinances: or his own family was brought up so strictly to the observance of these things, that they looked like a little church of themselves.> (Gill)
I am sure you feel uncomfortable with Joyce Meyer yet some of her teaching is far more thorough than male televangelists. I only said this to rub you.
I do not know Joyce Mayer and to tell you the truth I am not interested to know her, however I am much interested on what God has to say on such matters: And Jehovah said to Samuel, Do not look on his appearance, nor to the height of his stature, for I have rejected him. For man does not see what He sees. For man looks for the eyes, but Jehovah looks for the heart. (1 Samuel 16:7 LIT)
My friend, I can show you thousands of secular orators that are far better than any televangelist (and I fear that many of these are there already) that speak so well and move people o so deep, and yet they have no part in God. Does this prove anything? Personally I care not for how well one presents himself, till I have examined his life in the light of Scripture, then I may listen to him.
Do not be fooled for even the devil can present himself as an angel of light. It is what the Word says that matters and nothing else. This woman Joyce Meyer, being a woman has no part in preaching the Word of God, she is breaching the commands of God, thus anything she says it to be discarded for her very first step is already contrary to what God commands.
Besides I have seen many televangelists on TBN, screaming black women as well, and I must admit to be ashamed about their performances. May God have mercy on all of us.
The motivations with which I am currently inspired concern the consequences of moving away from Divine order and instruction. One of the principle ones being FATHERLESSNESS. A root cause for many social and human tragedies (including homosexuality, promiscuity, divorce, violence and crime)
Besides the aim of feminism, clearly stated in one of John MacArthur presentations, see in my site: <Church Order> <Women> <A Biblical Response to the Feminist Agenda> the biggest support of fatherlessness is the darling of the world, "Democracy". When the woman anthropologist Margaret Mead says, "finding roles for women isn't the problem - finding one for men is." she is stating things as they are now and their expected logical development given the present democracy. What has democracy produced? Among many other things: Abortion, Divorces, Rampant Feminism, Drug Addiction, Aids, Children Rebellion, Approval of Homosexuality, Promiscuity etcetera, besides the Destruction of Family mainly by the demise of Fatherhood. Through Democracy the headship of the father has been done away with, through Social Service the role of the Father as the defender of the family and the provider for the family has been also done away with. This is what the woman Margaret Mead is referring to (no doubt she did her bit to help things along), for the Biblical role of the man (and the traditional one for 6000 years) has always been as the Protector, the Provider, the Head, the Guider, the Law giver, the Ruler, the Judge, the King, the Prophet the Defender, the Namer of the family. All these God given roles have been removed from the man, by law, motivated by feministic, homosexual and other devilish lobbies, working through democracy.
There is no need for a father in modern "families" because all these attributes are provided by the Stateís social services. Moreover if a father were to implement his God given attributes, he will soon find himself forcibly removed from his home and without wife and children, but paying for their support, nonetheless. His only role left to him today is to earn money so that his family can spend it and be sheepishly obedient under his wife broom as the dodo of the house.
Well it is not like that in every home, as yet, but it is increasingly so.
And who let this situation come about, actually rather helping the process?
Men, for fear of the women through democracy.
We have far too many "teachers'' and all too few FATHERS.
You are absolutely correct; this statement is true today as it was in Paulís time but for different reasons.
For if you should have myriads of teachers in Christ, yet not many fathers; for I fathered you in Christ Jesus through the gospel. (1 Corinthians 4:15 LIT)
In Paulís days I guess that the natural fathers were in their proper place, but very few of these natural fathers were actually spiritual fathers. These evil days we live in, even the natural fathers are absent or made impotent by our democratic laws. This means we have a double loss, no natural fathers and no spiritual fathers.
I have longed for some sign of the fulfilment of Mal 4:6 but the curse seems to prevail see. Deu 28:41
Today we see a generation no longer able to tell the difference between right and wrong educated values free and graduate free of values. No wonder the next generation are being termed the 'ferals'.
Yes it is so, and by looking at the natural conclusion as things are moving on in todayís societies, Det 28:41 is the way it is going head on without hope of stopping, apart the direct intervention of the Lord. This is because even the churches have been deeply infected by the ways of the world; really there is little hope, till we be invaded by the Babylonian scourge, again.
aymon de albatrus I admire your scholarly skills but I doubt if you can find an audience who will be prepared to put them into practice.
My beloved Lien, you are too kind to me, hopefully my little effort is true to Scripture. Of course I know very well that it will be practically impossible for me to find an audience as proven by my preaching in my church. Nevertheless, incredibly, my site has had over 10,000 hits since inception 2 months ago and it has not been submitted to the search engines as yet. Maybe there are individuals that appreciate "straight talking".
Long ago, I determine to live my life according to this understanding: For do I now persuade men or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I would not be a slave of Christ. (Galatians 1:10 LIT)
Honestly, I do not seek or need the approval of men, my meat is to do my utmost to please God, and I seek nought glory for myself, for: I have been crucified with Christ, and I live; [yet] no longer I, but Christ lives in me. And the [life] I now live in the flesh, I live by faith toward the Son of God, the [One] loving me and giving Himself over on my behalf. (Galatians 2:20 LIT)
We can't change the world I'm afraid we can only demonstrate by our own witness and testimony seen and read of all men that God is indeed LOVE. And as I was able to convey to the Baptist Church in Bairnsdale a couple of weeks ago. God so loved etc but the focus in this verse I am convinced is not eternal life but the perishing. Useless to God and due for trashing. HE doesn't want anyone to perish. 2Pe 3:9. cf. 2Th 2:10
Change the world, not by our own agency, yet the 12 Apostles did turn the world upside down through the Holy Ghost.
Say for 2 Peter 3:9 have a look in my site <Universalistic> <Verses> <2 Peter 3:9>, for 2Th 2:10 I did not recognised it as an universalistic passage, but I see now that it may be taken as so. I shall put something together about it and add to the list. Well whilst you are there have a look also at 1Ti 2:4, in the same list.
2 Peter 3:9 is very easy to interpret correctly. Firstly we need to notice to whom this epistle was written to: Ö.. to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: (2 Peter 1:1 AV) and This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you;: (2 Peter 3:1 AV)
Obviously the epistle was written to Christians with Christians in mind, this is absolutely clear. Now the actual verse under discussion: The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9 AV)
What "us-ward" means? It means "concerning us", and who is "us"? them that have obtained like precious faith with us, of course. Thus Peter here in 3:9 is referring to Christians and saying that God is not willing that any of His chosen one shall perish but eventually all of these shall come to repentance through the work of the Spirit in them.
Then, His longsuffering to whom? The verse we are now considering tells us: "but to longsuffering to usward". And whom are the "usward"? - the human race, or God's own people? In the light of this context this is not an open question upon which each of us is free to form an opinion. The Holy Spirit has defined it. The opening verse of the chapter says, "This second Epistle, beloved, I now write unto you". And, again, the verse immediately preceding declares "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing etc" (v. 8). The "usward" then are the "beloved" of God. They to whom this Epistle is addressed are "them that have obtained (not "exercised", but "obtained" as God's sovereign gift) like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (2Pe 1:11). Therefore we say there is no room for a doubt, a quibble or an argument - the "usward" are the elect of God.
As for 2Th 2:10. Gill has this to say:
Ver. 10. And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness, &c.] Not that he deceives, or goes about to deceive, or thinks to deceive by open unrighteousness; but by unrighteousness, under a pretence of righteousness and holiness; as with the doctrines of justification and salvation by a manís own righteousness, with the doctrines of merit and of works of supererogation, which are taking to men, and by which they are deceived, and are no other than unrighteousness with God, and betray ignorance of his righteousness, and a non-submission to it; as also with practices which carry a show of holiness, religion, and devotion, when they are no other than acts of impiety, superstition, and will worship; as their litanies and prayers, their worship of images, angels, and saints departed, their frequent fasts and festivals, their pilgrimages, penance, and various acts of mortification and the like: but then these deceptions only have place
in them that perish; whom the god of this world has blinded, from whom the Gospel is hid, and to whom it is foolishness: all men indeed are in a lost perishing condition, through original and actual sin; but all shall not perish, there are some that God will not have perish, whom Christ is given for that they should not perish, and whom he has redeemed by his blood, and to whom he gives eternal life; but there are others that are vessels of wrath afore ordained to condemnation, reprobate men left to themselves, and given up to their heartsí lusts; and these, and only these, are finally and totally deceived, by the signs and lying wonders, and false appearances of antichrist; see #Mat 24:24
because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved; by the "truth" is meant either Christ the truth of types, the sum of promises, in whom the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are, and by whom grace and truth came; or the Gospel, often called truth, and the word of truth, it coming from the God of truth, has for its subject Christ the truth, is dictated and directed into by the spirit of truth, and contains nothing but truth: and by "the love" of it is meant, either the loveliness of it, for truth is an amiable, lovely thing, in its nature and use; or an affection for it, which there is, where true faith in it is, for faith works by love: there may be a flashy affection for the truths of the Gospel, where there is no true faith in Christ, or the root of the matter is not, as in the stony ground hearers; and there may be an historical faith in the doctrines of the Gospel, where the power of them is denied, and there is no true hearty love for them; and in these persons there is neither faith nor love; the truths of the Gospel are neither believed by them, nor are they affected with them, that so, they might be saved; for where there is true faith in the Gospel of Christ, and in Christ the substance of it, there is salvation; the reason therefore of these menís perishing is not the decree of God, nor even want of the means of grace, the revelation of the Gospel, but their rejection and contempt of it.
My Lien, thanking you for this opportunity, hoping you actually got to read thus far.
aymon de albatrus
When the righteous are in authority the people rejoice! [Pro 29:2]