Posted on 03/06/2014 6:06:04 AM PST by Ex-Episcopalian
With wealth comes the greatest temptation to trust in self. Not saying Meyers has a problem with wealth but the strong temptation is there.
Matthew 6:24 NKJV
“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
Most of it is Scripture. But then, you may not believe that.
Sorry, you are wrong here. Barak was the boss, the leader of thousands of men. Deborah merely went up with him (Jdg. 4:9).
Please do not forget, this was a time when people were not following God. They were doing as whatever they wanted (Jdg. 17:6, 21:25). Sort of like your spiritually immature group you mention.
In fact, Just because one has a Bible in his hand and can read it does not make one authoritative with it. Spiritual maturity only comes by being discipled by someone who qualifies as a discipler. And that might mean (and often does) that someone who has graduated from a Bible School or seminary might not be spiritually mature, and not even know it! He must have been personally been discipled, and he must have been taught how to disciple others.
A pertinent Scripture is as follows:
2Pe 3:14-17
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things,
be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without
spot, and blameless.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is
salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according
to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these
things; in which are some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they
do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things
before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error
of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
In verse 16 above, the word translated "unlearned" is more effectively rendered as "undiscipled". Both Paul and Peter were discipled by Jesus, and knew the trmendous importance to the churches of discipling as an integral, persistently ongoing process.
You might want to mull on this, eh? Is it a process you would be interested in following?
No, it is not Scripture. It is a writing about Scripture. I was not denigrating that, any more than the DRB or the AV Bibles. I am only saying that neither the current creed, nor those Bibles, are inspired.
And for sure, the extra line placed in the Apostles Creed is absolutely not Scriptural nor inspired. There is no phrase "catholic church" (capitalized or not) in the whole Bible. Nor was it in the original Roman Creed (which was/is satisfactory to me) before it was "mended" a few hundred years later.
I could go through it line by line, but I will take only one example.
“I believe, help my unbelief.”
Judges 4:4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
Why did you skip this? Judges 4:6 (Notice who is giving the orders!) And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedesh-naphtali, and said unto him, "Hath not the LORD God of Israel commanded, saying, 'Go and draw forward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulum?
God appointed/elected the judges. And there is no difference in how Israel as a nation was behaving then as there is in how we the US or the world for that matter are behaving right now. I seriously doubt you would have the same attitude regarding any of the other male judges that God set in motion. It was the children of Israel that demanded a king.
So do you preach that Rebekah demonstrates the nature of woman, deceptive and manipulative? I know that teaching is out there because I got told that was what the 'story' of Rebekah was all about.
I love IIPeter 3 the whole chapter. And to get the full flavor of verses 14-17 one cannot ignore the preceding verses from verse 1.
In fact, Just because one has a Bible in his hand and can read it does not make one authoritative with it. Spiritual maturity only comes by being discipled by someone who qualifies as a discipler. And that might mean (and often does) that someone who has graduated from a Bible School or seminary might not be spiritually mature, and not even know it! He must have been personally been discipled, and he must have been taught how to disciple others. A pertinent Scripture is as follows: 2Pe 3:14-17 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. In verse 16 above, the word translated "unlearned" is more effectively rendered as "undiscipled". Both Paul and Peter were discipled by Jesus, and knew the trmendous importance to the churches of discipling as an integral, persistently ongoing process. You might want to mull on this, eh? Is it a process you would be interested in following?
Are you also one of these that preach the law is no longer in effect? Strange then that when it comes to the woman there is all manner of laws still in effect. See I cannot find it a bigger transgression of the law for any, male or female to claim they got a signal from God to preach when they were not called. I cannot find anywhere Written that God said it was no longer a 'sin' to have other gods before Him.
Was it God talking in Genesis 3:12? And the man said, "The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." Classic case of the liberal mind.
You might as well adjust your mind to the prophecy of Joel as it has not happened yet.
I don't know what your point is with this reference, but in 1 Tim. 2: 11 (Paul) and 1 Pet. 3:1 (Peter) the word is, undeniably, subjection. The God-pleasing woman is to take on the attitude toward her appointed authority whether he deserves it or not. Period.
Regarding your reference to 2 Cor. 11:1-4, I can give you a detailed exposition of that passage, as I have done here before, but it will involve teaching a little of what the Greek says, but the nuances of which is missing in the translation into English.
See it is not just the woman that will have the propensity for deception.
This sentence says that the woman has the capability and inclination to deceive others. Is that the way you wish to use the term "propensity"? I do not think that is what you meant to say, but . . .
Simply because I showed you a little later on that at that period of time, the Israelites were no longer obeying Jehovah and His judgments, but were judging according to their own lights.
Deborah was both judging and prophesying, taking up authority that was not hers. Many years later on Huldah also was a prophetess, dwelling in the college at Jerusalem, also at another time when no one even knew where a copy of the Scriptures was, let alone follow it. These were not "prophtesses" appointed by God. Their statuses was only mentioned, not recommended.
So do you preach that Rebekah demonstrates the nature of woman, deceptive and manipulative?
I don't "preach" this, but the Scripture does show how she promptedd her favorite son Jacob, to deceive her husband Isaac regarding the primogeniture of his favorite son Esau, and though succeeding, was punished by never being allowed to see her son in this life again.
Is that what you mean by being deceptive? You might want to read that Genesis passage through again. And Rebekah's nurse was not the Deborah of Judges, which was hundreds of years later.
But what has this to do with our topic?
God appointed/elected the judges.
My dear FRiend, nowhere does it say that Jehovah appointed Deborah, nor does it rehearse that God approved or helped her. In that time, the Israelites had diappointed and disobeyed Jehovah, and Deborah's prophesying and judging was a part of that. But that did not get them out of captivity, until God appointed Gideon, and mightily gave him the victory.
"The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."
Did you miss the point here? Some people have taught that this is Adam trying to blame Eve for the Fall. That is WRONG doctrine. In this passage Adam was defending Eve by asserting "she gave me, but/and I did eat." That is, though she was deceived, he was not, and stood as a type of Christ in her place to take the blame--"I did eat"-- and receive the punishment (see 1 Tim. 2:13-14). This is what real men do--they defend their women and shield them from harm as far as they can. But they really can't shield them if they choose to abandon their God-ordained role.
Eve got into big trouble by presuming she could wear the pants in the family, and debate with that old Devil the serpent, rather than just saying, "You'd better take this up with my husband. I'm just his helpmate," and then walking away.
Have you grossly misinterpreted this? What did you mean about "liberal mind"?
You might as well adjust your mind to the prophecy of Joel as it has not happened yet.
You've got me here. I don't know at all what point you are making.
You might want to go back and think through your theology.
God the Son, identifiable as Jesus Christ, was also human by the Incarnation.
God the Father JUDGED all sins of humanity, past, present, and future, when they were imputed to Jesus Christ at the Cross.
Note: the Cross was all JUDGMENT, not FORGIVENESS.
The penalty of sin is death, which is a state of existence involving separation.
When the soul of Jesus Christ was judged of those imputed sins, He then suffered an immediate SPIRITUAL DEATH,...a separation from God the Father. This is manifest by His testimony on the Cross, recorded in Matthew 27:46
(46) And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
The human anthropology is composed of body, soul, and spirit.(Heb 4:12; James 2:26; 1Thes 5:23)
We know Jesus Christ physically died by the Roman soldier who pierced His side and out poured blood and water, indicating the plasma had already begun to separate.
His body went to the grave, His Spirit was returned to the Father, and His Soul descended to Sheol.
Three days later His Body was Resurrected from the grave, His Soul ascended from Hades, and His Spirit returned from God to His body and soul, becoming born again in a resurrected body.
Had He not died spiritually, we would not have a sacrificial atonement to satiate the integrity of God the Father’s Perfect Holiness, which is comprised of His Perfect Righteousness and His Perfect Justice (manifest by the 2 cherubim on the Mercy Seat in His Tabernacle).
The Gospel message, the good news, is that He did pay that price, and now HAS been FORGIVEN off all humanities’ sins which had been imputed upon Him, because He is Resurrected, even now ascended to the right hand of God the Father in Heaven.
We are still born from the bloodline of Adam and original sin, so are already condemned, until we come to have faith in Christ at the Cross. Because of that event, God the Father is now free to remain true to His integrity, His Essence, when He recognizes that faith and in response, now that the payment for sin has been made, is free to give us a regenerated human spirit, a second birth of a new man in us.
In God’s Plan, Jesus Christ, in His humanity died for us on the Cross, so that whosoever believes on Him, might have eternal life. God the Son needed the Forgiveness of God the Father, once the payment of sin had been made, to then be resurrected.
While God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one, He reveals Himself to us in three persons. This also assists us in understanding our role to God when we follow the path of Jesus Christ.
Please understand. I do not oppose the great power, riches, wealth, and artwork of the Catholic Church. To the contrary, I LOVE it. I’ve been to Rome. I’ve been to the Vatican. I’ve seen the Pope. I’ve been inside the Sistine Chapel, I’ve been inside St. Peter’s Basilica. I’ve been inside the catacombs. I LOVE it all. I wouldn’t get rid of any of it!!!!! I am a loyal and faithful Catholic. I have no issues with great wealth and riches (except when they are acquired by GOVERNMENT at the expense of others). And I like Joyce Meyer too. I have listened to many of her messages on TV. I find myself in agreement with nearly everything she says. Her biggest message seems to be this: Learn from my mistakes. I have no problem that she is very successful and makes a lot of money doing what she does. Obviously her message must resonate with many. We should commend success, not put it down.
It will take more than the nuances of the Greek to fully understand or teach what Paul was concerned that may happen to the 'church' referenced in IICor. 11. Eve was holy seduced by the devil and the devil is going to be allowed to have the same access to the 'church' and without Christ some churches are going to repeat Eve's sin. Notice Adam sinned with knowledge, Eve was only deceived/seduced.
No woman is to play stupid IF she is learned in the WORD and subject herself to a man if he is like the devil. That is just plain Godly common sense. God reads the mind and knows the heart and nobody cons God. They may con themselves and others, but, again nobody cons God.
This sentence says that the woman has the capability and inclination to deceive others. Is that the way you wish to use the term "propensity"? I do not think that is what you meant to say, but . . .
Some churches, and you sound very much like this is your doctrine do indeed preach the woman's natural tendencies are to 'deceive' and manipulate the man. It has been my experience some men are just as deceptive and manipulative as any woman.
I cannot judge the reason why you stated that Barak was the man in charge, when in fact the WORD states that Deborah, a prophetess, was the judge.
IF a man does not love the/his woman or church with the love Christ had for us the man is a con man and he is a hypocrite on an empty throne. He may rule, but he plants the seeds of rebellion. Might say this is how we got to where we are in our society. Man's ego and the seeds of rebellion.
God set up HIS government by placing Godly judges. And Deborah did not usurp authority. God put her in charge. Why does this bite you? It is Written in Judges 5:4 .... And the land had rest forty years. Don't be badmouthing Deborah, she served God.
I don't "preach" this, but the Scripture does show how she promptedd her favorite son Jacob, to deceive her husband Isaac regarding the primogeniture of his favorite son Esau, and though succeeding, was punished by never being allowed to see her son in this life again. Is that what you mean by being deceptive? You might want to read that Genesis passage through again. And Rebekah's nurse was not the Deborah of Judges, which was hundreds of years later. But what has this to do with our topic?
Rebekah was following God. Genesis 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, "Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels: and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger." (Jacob was the younger.)
And it was NOT that Jacob was Rebekah's favorite son, but as it is Written in Malachi 1:1 The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi.
"I have loved you, saith the LORD.
Yet ye say, 'Wherein hast Thou loved us?'
Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: Yet I loved Jacob,
3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness....
Paul give a second witness to this in Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him That calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, "The elder shall serve the younger."
13 As it is written, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."
So IF Rebekah deceived Isaac, then so did God!
No, I am not confusing Rebekah's nurse with Deborah of Judges. My point is that down through the ages the teaching of what was written gets manipulated into teachings that are not from God regarding woman. It is a deception to teach Rebekah as deceptive and manipulative when she was serving God. It is a pattern by some who have their own purposes to not only ignore but demean women of the Bible that indeed served God.
My dear FRiend, nowhere does it say that Jehovah appointed Deborah, nor does it rehearse that God approved or helped her. In that time, the Israelites had diappointed and disobeyed Jehovah, and Deborah's prophesying and judging was a part of that. But that did not get them out of captivity, until God appointed Gideon, and mightily gave him the victory.
But it does say, Deborah was a prophetess, and she judged Israel, and at the end of the song of Deborah, where the LORD is praised for the avenging of Israel, ... And the land had rest forty years. God approved else there would have been no rest.
Did you miss the point here? Some people have taught that this is Adam trying to blame Eve for the Fall. That is WRONG doctrine. In this passage Adam was defending Eve by asserting "she gave me, but/and I did eat." That is, though she was deceived, he was not, and stood as a type of Christ in her place to take the blame--"I did eat"-- and receive the punishment (see 1 Tim. 2:13-14). This is what real men do--they defend their women and shield them from harm as far as they can. But they really can't shield them if they choose to abandon their God-ordained role. Eve got into big trouble by presuming she could wear the pants in the family, and debate with that old Devil the serpent, rather than just saying, "You'd better take this up with my husband. I'm just his helpmate," and then walking away. Have you grossly misinterpreted this? What did you mean about "liberal mind"?
Adam not only blamed the woman but he blamed God. Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;
and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. (Christ said learn ye the parable of the fig tree)
8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, "Where art thou?" (As if God did not know where Adam was hiding.)
10 And he said, "I heard Thy voice in the garden and I was afraid, because I was naked; (Some potent apples they shared?) and I hid myself." (Adam did not cover Eve here.)
11 And He said, "Who told thee that thou was naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"
12 And the man said, "The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."
There was NO humility or taking of personal responsibility by Adam, he blamed the woman and God. That is the hallmark of liberalism, no personal responsibility. And the men preach it as if it were gospel.
The point of what is Written in Acts 2 prophesied by Joel, has not yet happened, is "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, 'I will pour out MY Spirit upon *ALL* flesh: and your sons and your *DAUGHTERS shall prophesy.....
This mentality and doctrine that woman cannot 'speak', 'preach', and/or 'teach' in or out of a church is not of or from God. He explicitly states otherwise.
Oh, I am not soliciting a preaching role, but, rather following the instructions from Christ, 'let no man deceive you'!
Trapped:
Well, I can’t see, personally, what anyone would get from somebody like Joyce Meyer. And people who make lots of money off religion [personal property, ie. that is assets with monetary value such as homes, cars, yachts, summer homes, and cash] concern me. And her Christology is flawed big time.
There is nothing preventing a woman from teaching from the soul/mind.
God has provided a special spiritual gift of Pastor-Teacher to some believers to communicate Bible doctrine to believers.
The complement of that spiritual gift for believers, is the spiritual gift of Evangelism, which is also a communication gift, but instead of communicating to believers, the spiritual gift is for communicating the Gospel to unbelievers.
Man is comprised of body, soul, and spirit. The soul and spirit are very distinct. The gift of Pastor-Teacher is a “Spiritual” gift, not to be confused with the soul.
There are many, if not the majority of people in roles of teaching who only teach from the soul. Nothing wrong with that teaching. God, though, has provided an incredible gift for some believers to also be able to perceive spiritually, the proper communication skills for a particular audience. That is the spiritual gift of Pastor-Teacher.
The gift of Pastor-Teacher is referenced in Scripture as applicable to men. No women are so referenced with that spiritual gift. There isn’t any admonition for women to not teach, but that teaching might merely be a soulish teaching. While in fellowship with God through faith in Christ, such a soulish effort may be very fruitful.
For many women, Joyce Meyer does provide an outstanding ministry. For men, listening to her ministry may provide soulish insights to the female mind from a Christian perspective. Nothing wrong with that.
The distinction is with the spiritual gifts available from God provide male Pastor-Teachers, but not necessarily female Pastor-Teachers. Female teachers are fine, but they don’t necessarily have the same “Spiritual” gifts some males have been given.
As I said before Joyce is not my cup of tea. When I study I want to read/hear what God instructs not what either a man or a woman goes off on some personal, I got from God tangent, worlds away from the God given instruction.
It has been my life long experience that men in majority believe it to be their calling to degrade woman. I have been told/taught about many women of the Bible in just such manner. However, the Written Word does not support that teaching. I hear far less regarding what is required of the man, instead very pointed sermons on what woman is doing that hinders the man. Just like the usage of Rebekah being the picture of women's nature. When that is just patently false. So the man that gave this sermon is just plain stupid to me and is not called by God to preach.
I have met and know far more submissive women than men who are Christ like.
And since it is the nature of most men to make sure they preach/teach and demand silent submissive women, I intend when I have opportunity to point out the role model Adam was. One can look to the restoring to Job after his long persecution and note that only the daughters given were named. The boys were not named. So God does not view the woman with the same negativity that most preachers do and claim came from God.
Further, IF down through the ages of time, had the men performed Christ like lives, this radical rebellion of women would not have any basis from which to get birthed. I know men who believe their woman and the woman is their possession. Now we have women trying to act just like a man and some will label the woman a slut, but the man is just being a man.
Woman is compromised of body, soul and spirit intellect as well. And IF God decides a woman will do His work, no flesh man is going to stop this action. And when the prophecy of Joel comes to pass will the men be able to know that it is the fulfillment of God?
Both men and women have a body, soul, and spirit, but we fill different roles in His Plan.
When I observe men do not bear children in childbirth, I’m not expressing a hatred against men.
Likewise, the spiritual gift of Pastor-Teacher, remains a gift provided to some men.
BTW, most ‘pastors’ in the pulpit lack the spiritual gift. Most don’t even know what their spiritual gift is, but have been raised in a worldly system substituting soulish academics for the spiritual gift of pastor-teacher. They can still teach soulishly, but lack the spiritual perception.
A Pastor-Teacher with that spiritual gift will sometimes perceive the exact sins and thinking of their flock without any past association with the persons in that audience. It is a very real spiritual gift which perceives spiritually significant situations.
And Joel's prophecy is God's plan. And it says And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, 'I will pour out MY Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
And on My servants and on MY handmaidens I will pour out in those days of My Spirit; and they shall prophesy: .......
It is Written!
Hallelujah! Another spiritual gift.
Now, you may have the last word, whether right or wrong.
But there is:
>> 1 Ti 2:12
>> But I suffer not a woman to teach,
>> nor to usurp authority over the man,
>> but to be in silence.
The teaching of doctrine is to be by spiritually mature men. Pastors are selected men who can keep the local church performing its tasks effectively. A pastor should be apt to teach, but he should not remain the only teacher, if he is fulfilling his function (2 Tim. 2:2). It may be that the pastor is not the most mature of the teachers in the congregation. The God-given teachers are men who have been discipled to the point where they have "overcome the wicked (one)" and beyond (1 Jn 2:13, 14), and they teach doctrine.
But the role didaskalos is not for the woman. She can, and ought to be, a teacher (again, when she has come to spiritual maturity to overcome the wicked one), a kalodidaskalos, a teacher of good things to young women:
Tit 2:3-4
3 The aged women likewise, that they be
>> in behaviour as becometh holiness,
>> not false accusers,
>> not given to much wine,
>> teachers of good things;
4 That they may teach the young women to
>> be sober,
>> to love their husbands,
>> to love their children,
5 >> To be discreet,
>> chaste,
>> keepers at home,
>> good,
>> obedient to their own husbands,
that the word of God be not blasphemed.
The Word of God will not be blasphemed if boys are led to become men of God in the ordinary sense through being discipled by spiritually mature men; when girls learn to become Godly women who have bee guided into their roles by spiritually mature women; and when wise young women prefer mature young men for their life companions and the father of their children.
As an aside, Ephesians 4:11, speaking about men who have been or are God's gift to the local churches, is correctly interpreted as "some pastors and some teachers" not "some who are pastor-teachers." The second wrong view defies the Granville Sharp rule regarding the use of "and" here.
Some denominations want to use this misinterpretation to claim that one selected for the office of pastor is also the only elder as well as the only teacher in a local church. Though claimed in their typical local constitution, it is an unscriptural doctrine, as it completely undermines the mandate to disciple both regenerated men and women through growth stages into demonstrable spiritual maturity as far as they can be brought.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.